Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (West Division), in the room of Sir Joseph William Leech, deceased.—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

THE MONMOUTHSHIRE AND SOUTH WALES EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL INDEMNITY SOCIETY LIMITED BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

SOUTH-EASTERN GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ASSOCIATED COMPANIES) BILL [Lords] (by Order).

Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [25th June], further adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEUTA AND TETUAN.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the approximate number of persons of German nationality at present in Ceuta and Tetuan, together with the approximate amount of war material in these ports which are so vitally important to the safety of Gibraltar?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The number of German nationals is thought to be about 120. His Majesty's Government have in mind the importance of the further point raised by the hon. Member about which the public interest prevents my giving any information.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

whether he has any further statement to make in regard to the present position in Tangier?

Mr. Butler: The services of the Tangier administration are reported to be functioning normally. Otherwise I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 19th June.

Mr. Liddall: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the Government are alive to the grave responsibility that rests upon them in trusting such a vital position to a country which is a non-belligerent and which at the same time harbours so many of the enemy?

Mr. Butler: If my hon. Friend will turn to my reply on the date in question, he will see that I said we have been notified by the Spanish Government that they intend to respect the neutrality of Tangier.

Mr. Shinwell: When the French Government gave their decision to allow the Spanish Government to exercise control in that territory, were His Majesty's Government informed, and what reply did they give?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government were informed, and they accepted the position and the statement of the Spanish Government that they intended to respect the neutrality of Tangier.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we trust the Spanish Government at this stage?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have accepted the honourable declaration of the Spanish Government.

Mr. Liddall: Is there such a thing as neutrality at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL TIN CONTROL.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will now, in the national interest, take steps to abolish the International Tin Control;
(2) whether he will consider giving instructions to the International Tin Control to increase the quota to 130 per cent., thereby enabling Malayan tin producers to produce tin to the maximum of their capacity?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I do not think it necessary or desirable in the national interest to bring the Tin Control Scheme to an end. My information is that the International Tin Committee is taking all possible steps to secure that no restriction will interfere with the production of such quantities of tin as may be required to meet Allied needs. It is for that committee to decide on the exact quantity needed for that purpose.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware, first, that the International Tin Committee is in fact controlled by foreigners and not by Britishers, and secondly, that even with a 120 per cent. quota the Malayan tin producers are entitled to produce only up to about 90 per cent. of their capacity, at a time when, surely, the whole resources of the Empire should be made available for our needs?

Mr. Hall: The International Tin Committee consists of representatives of the seven different nations in whose territory tin is produced. The British representation upon that committee is a fair one. As my hon. Friend knows, the chairman of the committee is an Englishman. With regard to production, I think my hon. Friend can be satisfied that there is sufficient production to meet all needs, and at the same time a very close watch is kept upon prices.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that actually the majority control does not represent the majority production, which is British; and furthermore, with regard to production, is he aware that the Malayan tin producers are capable of producing more than they are doing for British needs at the present time?

Mr. Hall: I think my hon. Friend is misinformed. The majority production is not British, but a very substantial proportion of that production is British, and the British representatives on the committee have no complaint at all as to the action of the representatives of other tin-producing countries.

Mr. Thorne: Did I understand my hon. Friend to say that a keen eye is being kept upon the prices of tin?

Mr. Hall: I can assure my hon. Friend that a very close watch is kept upon prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (MR. ERI JABOTINSKY).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Eri Jabotinsky has been included amongst the imprisoned Revisionists in Palestine who have been released?

Mr. George Hall: No, Sir. The persons recently released were those who had been detained on account of the campaign of political terrorism that took place in the spring of 1939. Mr. Jabotinsky was not among their number.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is not this a good opportunity for treating Mr. Eri Jabotinsky, who is only guilty of having saved the lives of 2,000 Jews from the Danube, as being equally innocent with the rest of the Revisionists who were arrested and have been released? Why this persistent persecution of Mr. Eri Jabotinsky?

Mr. Hall: I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that this matter is constantly before us, and I will bring his question to the attention of my Noble Friend.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Secretary of State particularly to the case of Mr. Eri Jabotinsky, in view of the fact that this man's father is doing his best to help this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (INCREASED FARES).

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the Charges (Railway Control) Consultative Committee on the fares charged by the London Passenger Transport Board, and what action he proposes to take?

The Minister of Transport (Sir John Reith): Yes, Sir. The report is being published, and copies will be available at the Vote Office to-day. The committee has recommended increases in certain of the Board's road service fares, to produce a sum equal to about 10 per cent. of the receipts from those services, and also in some corresponding Board railway fares. The chief increase on the road services, and the only increase on the railways, is the addition of ½d. to existing 1d. and


1½d. fares, and to a number of existing 2d. fares. An Order authorising the increases recommended by the committee has been made. They will come into effect generally on Wednesday, 3rd July.

Sir P. Harris: Has due consideration been given to some large working-class districts some distance out, where the fares on the family are very high? Is the Minister satisfied that no undue hardship is imposed on people who have to come regularly to work in the centre of London?

Sir J. Reith: If my right hon. Friend will read the report, which is available, I think he will find that the committee gave full consideration to just such points as that which he has mentioned.

SLEEPING COACHES, LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange a modification in the policy of running only first-class sleepers on the London and North Eastern Railway Company's lines in order that third-class passengers may be afforded an equal opportunity to benefit by such facilities as the railway can still provide?

Sir J. Reith: A drastic reduction in passenger services is still necessary on the London and North Eastern Railway. It is impossible to increase the weight of their three night trains by the addition of another coach, but if the hon. Member will inform me whether he has in mind travellers to Aberdeen or Edinburgh or Newcastle, I will go into the matter further with the Railway Executive Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

BROADCAST MUSIC (FACTORIES).

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Information whether, to assist in the rate of production and prevent fatigue amongst workers in factories, he will arrange for band or other appropriate music specially selected for the purpose to be broadcast during the hours of 11 am. to 12 noon, and 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., for reception in factories which provide that feature; and whether he will consult with the Minister of Supply and examine the advantages of encouraging more firms to instal this stimulant to production?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): The B.B.C. introduced such broadcasts on 23rd June, and two programmes are broadcast each day, the first from 10.30 to 11 a.m., and the second from 3 to 3.30 p.m. With regard to the second part of the Question, I will consult with the Departments concerned.

Mr. Etherton: While congratulating my hon. Friend on the expeditious way in which this service was started, may I ask him to bear in mind the great importance of the suitability of the music which is broadcast, as I am informed that some of the music which has been broadcast during the last two days has been rather dull?

Mr. Nicolson: That will certainly be borne in mind.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain types of music actually create fatigue?

Mr. Logan: Will the Minister see that jigs and reels are included?

Mr. Nicolson: I will also bear that in mind.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that a very encouraging tune for the workers is the "Internationale"?

RECEPTION AREAS (PUBLICATION OF NAMES).

Mr. J. H. Hollins: asked the Minister of Information whether he will put a stop to the publication of the names of reception areas to which children are being sent both by the Press and the British Broadcasting Corporation in view of the risks entailed?

Mr. Nicolson: Reception areas cover a large portion of the country. For this reason it is not considered practicable or necessary to keep the names of these areas secret, and they have in fact been a matter of common knowledge both in this country and abroad. The question whether the names of the districts to which children are being sent should be published in advance of a particular movement will be kept constantly under review; in the case of certain recent movements it was considered desirable to make public the general direction of the movement.

Mr. Hollins: Is the Minister aware that within two days of the children coming to this area newspapers were publishing pictures of their arrival with the name of the town, and this at a time when we are fighting an enemy who believes in a war of nerves? Is he further aware that newsagents' placards were announcing "Bombs on Wales" and that parents were running around to find someone to tell them what had happened to their children? Does he not think it wiser that a more indeterminate area should be named? It would be better for the nerves of the parents and for the children.

Mr. Nicolson: The hon. Member will note that in my reply I stated "general direction of movement." However, I quite appreciate his point.

MEETINGS CAMPAIGN (NOTIFICATION).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that regional information officers, when desiring to notify Members of Parliament that a meetings campaign was proposed, wrote first to Members at their private addresses and then sent a copy of the same letter to Members at the House of Commons; and will he take prompt action to stop similar wasteful practices on the part of his Department?

Mr. Nicolson: My right hon. Friend had received complaints from some hon. Members to the effect that they had not been notified in time that regional meetings were to be held in their constituencies. He regarded these complaints as reasonable, and steps were taken to ensure that such notifications should not miscarry. In view, however, of the urgent need of economy, he has given instructions that only one such notification should be sent out in future.

BOMB DAMAGE (PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider discouraging the too frequent publication in the Press of photographs of damage done by bombs from hostile aeroplanes in this country on the ground that the repetition of such illustrations day after day is calculated to give an exaggerated impression of German successes and to cause despondency and alarm among the civilian population?

Mr. Nicolson: The publication of these photographs has for some time been causing my right hon. Friend serious concern. He does not, however, possess powers to prohibit publication and can only hope and believe that the Press will appreciate the point made by the hon. Member and realise their serious responsibilities in such matters.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister realise that it is only necessary to apply by Order-in-Council for him to have the powers?

Mr. Nicolson: My right hon. Friend is very anxious to do nothing to curtail the liberty of the Press. Hitherto, he has been able to rely with great success on the good sense of the persons concerned.

Mr. Lewis: Will he make representations to the Press on this subject?

Mr. Nicolson: Representations have already been made.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will the Minister also consider addressing to the Press the inadvisability of putting headlines to these photographs such as "Havoc in the Midlands"?

Mr. Nicolson: The question of headlines also is causing my right hon. Friend the very gravest concern.

PARACHUTE LANDINGS (LEAFLET).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Information whether the booklet giving instructions to the civil population as to their action in the event of parachute landings has yet been issued?

Mr. Nicolson: A leaflet, "If the Invader comes—what to do and how to do it," was circulated to every householder in the country in the course of last week. This leaflet contained a number of instructions to the civilian population as to their action in the event of parachute and other landings. The leaflet included a statement that "more detailed instructions will be given you when the danger comes nearer."

Mr. Cocks: Is that the leaflet to which the hon. Member referred during his recent speech?

Mr. Nicolson: It was the first instalment of these instructions.

Mr. Shinwell: When the danger comes nearer shall we have time to consider the leaflet issued by the Ministry?

Mr. Nicolson: I trust that every Member of this House and every householder has already consulted it.

Mr. Leach: What does the hon. Member mean by the danger coming nearer?

Mr. Nicolson: The actual danger of invasion becoming imminent.

FILM, "SQUADRON 992."

Mr. Silkin: asked the Minister of Information why the documentary film, "Squadron 992," made by the General Post Office unit, which was shown privately on 2nd April last, was not generally released until 24th June?

Mr. Nicolson: The film, "Squadron 992," was hurriedly completed, in order that it might be shown privately to the French Minister of Information on 2nd April. Arrangements were then made for its distribution in the normal way, through trade channels, and the first public showing was given in London on 7th June. The film was generally released on 24th June.

Mr. Silkin: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it satisfactory that a film shown on 2nd April should not have been generally released to the public until 10 weeks afterwards?

Mr. Nicolson: No, Sir. It was owing to the delay in regard to this film that arrangements were made which, we hope, will make a much more speedy distribution possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (TELEPHONE EMPLOYES).

Mr. Windsor: asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice in his Department for telephone employés, called up for military service, to have their Army pay made up to its civil level; and whether this applies also to the Hull telephone service?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The local telephone service at Hull is owned and administered by the Hull Corpora-

tion, and the conditions granted to members of the corporation staff released for military service are outside my jurisdiction.

Viscountess Astor: Why is it that these people have their pay made up while there are thousands of people in the country who do not?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (TRANSFERS FROM ARMY).

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a man who has expressed a preference for the Navy and is called up under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, for the Army is not granted a transfer to the Navy unless the man has, in the opinion of the Army authorities, sufficient previous seafaring experience; whether men are only called up for the Navy if they have had previous seafaring experience; and whether he will have inquiries made into the present practice, which is preventing men keen to serve in the Navy from joining that Service?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour last Thursday and by the Secretary of State for War yesterday. The question of a transfer from the Army arises only in those rare cases where a man's special naval qualifications have been overlooked previously. I am satisfied that the present procedure is adequate to deal with such cases.

Mr. Etherton: Does the Minister realise that in certain districts men who have expressed preference for the Navy have been called up for the Army without the naval authorities being consulted? Does he approve of this procedure?

Sir V. Warrender: The fact is that there are many more men who express preference for the Navy than the Navy can possibly take. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it, but he must not assume that we can meet the desire of all those who wish to join the Navy.

Mr. Etherton: I will bring to the notice of the Minister a particular case that I have in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CEREAL ACREAGE.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total area under cereal crops, wheat, oats and barley, in June, 1921, and in June, 1939?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:


ENGLAND AND WALES.




Acres.




June, 1921.
June, 1939.


All Cereals
…
5,774,882
4,050,549


Wheat
…
1,976,004
1,682,626


Barley
…
1,435,620
910,073


Oats
…
2,148,943
1,358,237

MCCREAGH ESTATE, HAMPSHIRE.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any action has been taken to bring into useful production of food the McCreagh estate in Hampshire?

Mr. T. Williams: Effective steps have been taken to utilise this estate in the best national interests.

Mr. Lunn: As I understand it, this is an estate of many thousands of acres, and will the Minister say whether it is now being used for food production?

Mr. Williams: I can assure by hon. Friend that although this estate has been more or less derelict for 20 years, the whole of its 3,000 acres are now being effectively used.

UNDER-CULTIVATED LAND.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether war agricultural committees have to get his approval before they can take possession of under-cultivated land; and is he prepared to reduce the amount of correspondence and delay so that these committees can be given authority to increase food production without having to refer every detail to him?

Mr. T. Williams: Under the Cultivation of Lands Order, 1939, my right hon. Friend's consent is required to a War Agricultural Executive Committee exercising the drastic power of taking possession of land. In order, however, to facilitate

procedure and avoid delay, my right hon. Friend has arranged for such consent to be given by the Department's local Land Commissioner in the case of farms which are not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry and for which a suitable tenant is forthcoming or of derelict land.

Mr. Lunn: Is my hon. Friend aware that some war agricultural committees are complaining very much about the delay in utilising derelict land for the purpose of food production? Will the Minister take steps to see this work is speeded up?

Mr. Williams: I have already explained in my reply that my right hon. Friend has delegated this power to the Land Commissioners, and as a result a good deal of delay ought to be avoided in the future.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will the Minister see that information is given to the landowners as well as to the tenants, which is not always done?

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, he will consider setting up local advisory boards of agricultural and gardening experts under the supervision of the local authority to stimulate the allotment movement?

Mr. T. Williams: Action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member was taken by my Department immediately after the outbreak of war. In the great majority of the larger towns horticultural advisory committees have already been established by the local authorities in order to give stimulus and technical help to allotment holders and private gardeners in their areas, and the Ministry's horticultural inspectors are available to give such assistance as may be required by the committees. In addition a panel of several hundred practical gardeners has been established by the Royal Horticultural Society in conjunction with the Ministry. The services of these men are available for lectures, advisory visits, etc., at the request of committees; they act in a voluntary capacity, receiving only their out-of-pocket expenses, and my right hon. Friend is indebted to them and to the Society for this helpful collaboration in the furtherance of the allotment movement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (STATISTICS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Education how many boys and girls left the elementary schools for the years ended March, 1938, 1939 and 1940?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Information relating to the year ended 31st March, 1938, was given in reply to the hon. Member's Question of 6th March, 1939, a copy of which I am sending him. Figures for 1939 have not been tabulated owing to the need for eliminating during war-time nonessential statistical work, and those for 1940 have not been collected, since, owing to the abnormal conditions under which many schools have been working, they would not have been reliable or have provided a useful basis of comparison with figures for previous years.

Mr. Thorne: I accept my hon. Friend's explanation.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Although the figures are in abeyance for the time being, can we get them later on, when conditions are normal?

Mr. Ede: I do not think it will ever be possible for the year ended 31st March, 1940, because of the conditions that were prevailing with regard to evacuation and reception and the closure of schools at that time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (STAFF).

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare how many persons are now employed in his Department?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): The number on 22nd June was 1,373.

Mr. Culverwell: When is the Minister going to consider reducing the staff of this Department, because on 1st June the number was 1,461, and he has made only a small reduction since the occupation of Belgium and Holland and since France went out of the war; and if our enemies continue to blockade themselves, surely it is time that the right hon. Gentleman considered reducing his staff?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member must not assume that contraband control has been the only function of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. If my hon. Friend will compare the figures given to him on 4th June with the present figure, he will see that there has been a reduction; and it is possible that, as a result of the reorganisation which my right hon. Friend is now undertaking, there will be some further reductions.

Mrs. Tate: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are typists in the Ministry who have nothing to do but knit and read novels all day and who draw 10 hours' overtime, although there is nothing to do? It is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Foot: I do not accept that allegation; until recently a large part of the staff were working many hours overtime.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister bear in mind that economic action still remains the best hope of victory and make that the overriding consideration rather than the saving of a small sum of money?

Mr. Foot: That is the paramount consideration in the mind of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Culverwell: In view of the considerable reduction in work, are two Ministers now necessary?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ACCOMMODATION, LONDON RAILWAY TERMINI.

The following Question stand upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ROBERTSON:

23. To ask the Secretary of State for War whether rest rooms, washing and lavatory facilities, and food canteens, are provided for members of the Forces in Euston, King's Cross, St. Pancras, and Liverpool Street stations?

Mr. Robertson: I put this Question down to the Minister of Transport because it concerns passengers of the railway companies who are being paid for by the State. I put a similar Question yesterday, and it was answered by the Secretary of State for War. I hope, with your permission, Sir, and the convenience of the House, to raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night, and I think it is desirable that the Minister of Transport should be present.

Mr. Speaker: Notice has been given of several other Questions that are to be raised on the Adjournment, and whether the hon. Member will be able to raise his Question depends on there being time.

WELFARE WORK.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any funds, and of what nature, are available for welfare work among the troops in this country?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): Hitherto, funds for welfare work in the Army have been found mainly from voluntary sources, to whose generosity I should like to pay a tribute. Recently, the whole question of welfare was exhaustively examined and certain recommendations were made. But my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate it if I say that the recommendations came forward just when the Battle of France was beginning, and it has been difficult to deal with them up to now.

Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. Friend hasten a decision on this matter, because there is a certain amount of concern as to how the welfare of the troops is being administered?

Mr. Gledhill: Is it possible to meet the cost of this welfare out of the large profits made by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute canteens?

Mr. Law: I do not know what the profits are, but the suggestion will be considered.

LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the Local Defence Volunteers or otherwise, he will set up for each parish an organised system of protection with a local commandant in each village to organise its defence?

Mr. Law: Local defence must be organised in relation to defence requirements as a whole; but my hon. Friend can rest assured that one of the main objects for which the Local Defence Volunteers have been raised is to give local security to villages, most of which now have their own Local Defence Volunteer detachments under a local commander.

Mr. Cocks: If it is the policy of the Government to make each village a fortress, who is responsible for such a matter as rendering fields unfit for aerial landings?

Mr. Law: The responsible authority is the War Office.

Mr. Cocks: Who is the responsible authority in the locality for doing these things?

Mr. Law: The orders for doing these things are sent to the local military commanders.

Sir Richard Acland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that neither the commanders of Local Defence Volunteers nor the volunteers themselves have the remotest idea of what kind of physical structures they should now be preparing in villages and fields in order to make them as strong as possible against tanks? Should not some kind of lead be given to these people, who are very keen to be getting on with their job?

Mr. Law: The hon. Member's information differs from that which I have received. If he draws my attention to any particular case he has in mind, I will look into it.

Sir R. Acland: Could the hon. Gentleman publish the instructions which he has sent, because none have arrived?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have instructions been given to local volunteer detachments to prepare defences of any kind?

Mr. Law: Certainly, Sir.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole matter of the defence of vital posts throughout the country is really a military matter for the military authorities, and not a matter for the civil authorities?

Mr. G. Strauss: Should not the War Office issue an order for the erection of these posts?

Mr. Law: The military authority is issuing orders all the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREACHERY.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary of State for War how many persons have been shot for spying or


offences against the State since the outbreak of war?

Mr. Law: It is not in the public interest to publish any information on this subject.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Can my hon. Friend assure me that this matter has not been treated with leniency or complacency towards the persons concerned?

Mr. Thorne: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the song entitled, "Onward, Christian Soldiers"?

Mr. Law: I can certainly give my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) the assurance for which he asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

INTERNEES.

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will do everything possible to bring to an end the practice of interning Jewish refugees with Nazi prisoners of war?

Mr. Law: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that civilian internees are accommodated in the same camps as prisoners of war. As regards the former, it is the policy to segregate Jewish from Nazi enemy aliens. It has not yet been possible to give effect to this policy, but it is proposed to do so as the necessary arrangements can be made.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of dealing with the wives of certain British subjects recently arrested, in the same manner as with their husbands?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend has not hesitated to order the detention of wives in cases where he has been satisfied that there were good reasons; but because there are reasons for ordering the detention of the husband it does not in every case follow that there are reasons for ordering the detention of the wife.

Mr. Mander: Is the same publicity given to the internment of the wife as to that of the husband?

Mr. Peake: Exactly the same degree of publicity is given to both, and that is absolutely nil.

Viscountess Astor: In the case of a wife who is as well-known a pro-Nazi as her husband, will she be interned?

Mr. Peake: We shall be only too happy to receive suggestions from every quarter of the House.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not time the Home Office stopped asking for suggestions and took a line of their own?

Colonel Wedgwood: Is it not well known that the Home Office do make suggestions and that the military and M.I. 5 will not adopt them?

SPECIAL CONSTABLES.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Home Secretary whether he will reserve from military service part-time unpaid special constables over 30 years of age, provided they had joined the special constabulary prior to the outbreak of war, and have performed, and continue to perform regularly and satisfactorily, an average of at least 12 hours duty per week?

Mr. Peake: Many part-time special constables are already in reserved occupations or are above military age, and their services will, therefore, remain available. As regards the remainder, my right hon. Friend does not think that he would be justified at present in asking that they should be relieved of their obligations for military service.

Mr. Culverwell: In view of the fact that these men have been giving their valuable services voluntarily since the outbreak of war, does the hon. Gentleman not think they deserve some special consideration, and will he look into the matter and make some arrangements on the lines of my suggestion?

Mr. Peake: We have no evidence that there is any demand, either by these special constables themselves or by chief constables on their behalf, for them to be excused.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS.

Mr. Martin: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that the brick shelters now being erected in many public places are able to withstand heavy shock and blast, as well as splinters; what representations have been made to him


on the subject by competent engineering authorities; and whether he will consider putting in suitable places more of the deep dug-out type of shelter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): I am advised that shelters of the type which I think the hon. Member has in mind are fully in accordance with the standards set by the Government's shelter policy. As regards the latter parts of the Question, I would refer him to the statement which my right hon. Friend made in the course of the Debate on 12th instant.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has there been an increase in the provision of shelters?

Mr. Mabane: A very considerable increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH REFUGEE CHILDREN.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Home Secretary what is the justification for the continued presence in this country of approximately 500 children from the Spanish Province of Biscaya; and whether, in view of our own urgent need at the present time for national economy and security as well as for good relations with the Spanish Government, he will take immediate steps to repatriate these children to their own country, where good treatment is assured to them?

Mr. Peake: The committee responsible for the care of these children are anxious to return as many as possible of them to their parents. Only about 450 such children are at present in this country, and of these it is hoped to repatriate some 50 at an early date.

Captain Graham: Is my hon. Friend proceeding with all expedition? Will he define rather more closely "by an early date," because this is urgent?

Mr. Peake: The position is that only about 10 per cent. of the children who came to this country are still here. It is a question of making suitable arrangements, because after the length of time they have been here we cannot entirely divest ourselves of all responsibility for their welfare.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will not the Government of Spain make suitable arrangements? They are their own people.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PEACE BRUDERHOF.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Home Secretary whether the whole community of the German Peace Bruderhof at Ashton Keynes, Wiltshire, has yet been interned?

Mr. Peake: The question of the best method of dealing with the members of this community is being considered, but in advance of executive action it would not be in the public interest to state what measures of control are in contemplation.

Captain Graham: Is my hon. Friend fully aware of the position?

Mr. Peake: We have had a great deal of advice given us from a great many quarters in regard to this community. We have the position under constant review. I would point out that only 40 per cent. of the members of the community are either German or Austrian, and that the community is making a valuable contribution to the production of food in this country during the war.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that this is a community set up after the last war whose sole concern is Christianity, and that the members of it are a great asset to the country instead of a liability?

Mr. G. Strauss: Is the hon. Member aware that this organisation is violently anti-Nazi and that all the members of the organisation remaining in Germany were interned a long time ago?

Mr. Peake: As the Noble Lady said, this is a pacifist community which was driven out of Germany in 1934. Its members all wear brown dressing-gowns and beards and are for that reason unlikely to be employed by the enemy.

Captain Graham: Does the hon. Member consider that the presence of this community is likely to assist the prosecution of the war?

Mr. Peake: Yes, by the production of food.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONETARY RESTRICTIONS (CANADA).

Mr. Cary: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will rescind the monetary restrictions applied to Canada as a dollar country, so that the wife or children of any man serving in the Armed


Forces or industry, if evacuated overseas, can remain in possession of a part or the whole of family savings?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): My right hon. Friend fears that, owing to the necessity for utilising our dollar resources for essential war needs, he cannot make the concession suggested.

Miss Rathbone: Could not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make an arrangement by which the parents could pay the money into a trust fund in this country and the Government in Canada be asked to advance the money? How would that interfere with the dollar position?

Captain Crookshank: That is an entirely different Question. If the hon. Lady puts it down, I will give an answer.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I did put it down, and that the answer given yesterday had no reference to my practical suggestion?

Captain Crookshank: I will tell my right hon. Friend. Perhaps the hon. Lady will try again.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

CANADA (INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY).

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Supply whether every effort is being made to use Canada's industrial capacity to the fullest degree; and what steps are being taken to ensure that this is so?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir; every effort is being made, in conjunction with His Majesty's Government in Canada, to utilise Canada's industrial capacity to the fullest extent.

Mr. Burke: Has the Minister had his attention drawn to statements both in the Press of Canada and in this country and in letters received from Canada by many people in this country, expressing a feeling of great frustration because offers from Canada have been very tardily investigated and taken up in this country?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that some of these controversial matters involve internal Dominion political considerations

with which it would not be right for me to deal, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I am anxious to get the greatest possible output from the Dominion of Canada.

ORNAMENTAL IRON GATES.

Commander King-Hall: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that ornamental wrought-iron gates are being advertised for sale in the daily Press at £5 each; and whether he will consider taking them over, as metal in them would be of value in the production of armaments?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that the gates referred to are probably of Italian or Belgian manufacture imported before the war, and it is unlikely that their value for re-smelting would be more than a small fraction of their sale value as gates. There are, of course, substantial quantities of iron and steel goods made for civil use still on the market, much of which might serve as an ultimate reserve for armament production. At the present stage, however, I think that we should concentrate our efforts on salvaging the large quantity of iron and steel material of all kinds which has ceased to serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does my right hon. Friend include beacons at pedestrian crossings in that category?

Mr. Morrison: I have already answered a Question by my hon. Friend on that point.

MACHINE TOOLS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Supply whether he can explain and give reasons for the situation in regard to machine tools dealt with in the sixth report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, page 16, paragraph 38; whether the report has been considered; and whether he is satisfied with the present position and arrangements?

Mr. H. Morrison: The delay in proceeding with the expansion of a factory for the production of machine tools, to which the Select Committee refer in paragraph 38 of their report, was due to the difficulty in arriving at suitable arrangements with the company concerned. The original proposals could not be accepted and the drastic modifications which were necessary


took a considerable time to negotiate. The scheme of expansion was re-cast on a short-term basis, and work on it is now proceeding. As regards the second part of the Question, I have recently taken steps to strengthen the staff responsible for the control of machine tools and, in order further to assist the Controller, have delegated to him my power of requisitioning machine tools. I fully appreciate the importance of close and continuous contact between the Departments concerned, and shall watch carefully the arrangements devised to secure it.

Mr. Smith: There are several matters which arise out of that answer, but they cannot be dealt with by way of Supplementary Questions.

Mr. Ammon: What is meant by "suitable arrangements"?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter of detail, and it has been done. It had been under the consideration of the Ministry for some time before I was there. That has been settled. I have made certain changes in the machine tools department.

AREA ORGANISATION.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has given consideration to the recommendations contained in the sixth report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and in particular to paragraphs 28–34; whether any action has been taken, and whether it is intended to act upon the recommendations on page 19, numbers 8 and 9; and, if so, what action has been taken, or is it proposed to take?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. Active steps have been and are being taken to strengthen the area organisation of the Ministry of Supply, and instructions have been issued to ensure that there is full coordination between the area officers and their staffs and the technical officers of headquarters departments, who are employed in the areas. The following steps have been taken:
Technical officers of the Directorates-General of Munitions Production and Ammunition Production have been posted to areas for progress work. These officers will report direct to their Departments in London, but they will supply the area officers with copies of their reports. They

will normally be accommodated in the offices of the area officers, and they have been instructed to co-operate in every way with them.
The area officers, and the area boards of which they are members, will be used for the work of investigating offers of capacity and absorbing it in the war effort. It has been decided that this duty should be decentralised as far as possible. The area officers will be able, in this connection, to enlist the help of the technical officers, just mentioned.
An additional senior officer is being appointed to each area as deputy area officer, and I am proceeding with their selection as a matter of urgency. Their appointment should help me to obtain what I consider most important—the closest personal contact between area officers and officers in production departments at headquarters and also between the strengthened area organisation and local industry. I am also arranging for a careful review to be made of the staff allotted to the area officers, in order to ascertain in what other respects it may need strengthening.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the expression of views given by competent representatives, at the conference which was held on Monday, and does he think that his reply will go a long way towards meeting the ideas of the representatives who attended that conference?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I am aware of those representations. We have taken them fully into account. I think these proposals will go a long way to meet them. The hon. Gentleman and the House can take my assurance that everything will be done to get this area organisation upon a right and vigorous basis.

Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the person responsible for progress will not be told to mind his own business when making observations to headquarters that there are defects in some of the units selected?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly see to that.

Mr. Stokes: When selecting the staffs of these area committees will the right hon.


Gentleman bear in mind that the personnel should be selected from industries within the area and not be imported from outside?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter of organisation on which I must take the opinion of my advisers.

TIMBER CONTROL.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that in dealing with the import of timber coming into this country, the Timber Control is insisting on a method of listing and invoicing the goods so long and complicated that great delays and expense are being caused to the firms concerned; and whether he will consider adopting simpler methods?

Mr. H. Morrison: Virtually, all imports of timber are made by the Timber Controller on Government account, and the importation does not involve listing or invoicing. If my hon. Friend has in mind the procedure for invoicing transfers of timber by wharfingers from national stock to merchants and from merchants to consumers, this procedure was adopted by the Timber Control after consultation with the Emergency Advisory Committee of the Timber Trades Federation, and is essential for the purpose of keeping an accurate record of sales on Government account.

Mr. Price: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it takes staffs the same time to do half the work that was done in normal times, and can he not make the procedure more simple?

Mr. Morrison: That is over a limited field. I will investigate the point which my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Thorne: I take it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that unless he can do it within the time we are going to get a lot of things that we do no like.

Mr. Morrison: That is certainly being kept in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

SUGAR (FRUIT PRESERVING).

Mr. Silkin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether,

as the withdrawal of the allowance of sugar for making jam from purchased fruit will inflict hardship on people of small earnings by compelling them to buy manufactured jam at a higher cost without necessarily bringing about a saving in the consumption of sugar, he will give further consideration to this question?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): My Noble Friend has this matter under consideration, and it is hoped to make an announcement on it at an early date.

BANANAS.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, as the food value of bananas is substantially less than sugar while being more expensive, he will consult with the appropriate department in order to effect a reduction in the import of bananas, so that the import of sugar may be increased.

Mr. Boothby: No decrease in the imports of sugar has resulted from any lack of shipping which could have been made good by the transfer of the specially-built banana boats to the transport of sugar. Moreover, owing to the different types of shipping employed in these two trades, the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion would not necessarily produce the results which he desires.

POTATO STARCH.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has yet made arrangements to make use of a portion of this season's potatoes for the making of potato starch; and what progress has been made with the erection of factories for this purpose?

Mr. Boothby: Returns which have recently been obtained show that the stocks of potato starch now held in this country are sufficient to meet essential industrial requirements for a long period. In these circumstances, it is not proposed to embark upon a policy of home manufacture at present, but the position will be kept under constant review.

Mr. Gibson: With regard to the last part of the Question, is the erection of the factories being proceeded with?

Mr. Boothby: No, Sir, not at present.

MILK INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether trade unions covering workers in the milk distributing industry are to be represented on the committee to be set up to consider the reorganisation of that industry?

Mr. Boothby: I assume the hon. Member refers to the committee mentioned my reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 10th June. As I indicated in that reply, the constitution of that committee is a matter for the milk industry. My noble Friend proposes to appoint a small committee, of persons not connected with the milk industry, to advise him independently on the matter, and arrangements are being made to secure representation of the workers' interests on this committee.

WEST AFRICA (COCOA).

Mr. Creech Jones (for Dr. Haden Guest): asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will reconsider his decision to destroy a large quantity of cocoa in Nigeria and the Gold Coast amounting in value to about £300,000 and paid for by the British Government; and instead either provide additional storage for 12 months to create a food reserve, in view of possible emergencies, or transfer it to the United States, by gift, for the manufacture of cocoa butter, or give it to the Red Cross for refugees, or civil populations impoverished by war?

Mr. George Hall: I can assure my hon. Friend that all the possibilities which he mentions were fully considered before the decision was taken. No figure of cost can be given, as the position is being reviewed from month to month. I would remind my hon. Friend that markets to the extent of nearly 300,000 tons annually, which is equivalent to the whole Gold Coast crop, have now been lost for the duration of the war. In addition, there are difficulties in providing shipping space for cocoa. Consequently, the existing large storage capacity in West Africa is full to overflowing, and there is an ample reserve of cocoa on which the world markets can draw whenever shipping and other considerations permit. Additional stores in West Africa would take time to build and would not solve immediate difficulties. Further, even the

best quality of cocoa will not keep indefinitely without serious deterioration. The question is, however, continuing to receive attention, together with a number of other suggestions which my Noble Friend has received.

Mr. Creech Jones: Has this cocoa now been destroyed?

Mr. Hall: A very small proportion is being destroyed, but we are keeping the position under review and examining it month after month.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the Minister stop them from destroying it?

Mr. Burke: Will the Minister bear in mind that Lancashire cotton exports to the Gold Coast will come to an end unless the people on the Gold Coast have some means of paying for these exports?

Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend may be reassured that the matter is receiving our consideration. He must know that the Government undertook the responsibility for the purchasing of the cocoa crop in the Gold Coast and Nigeria.

Mr. Lipson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the recommendation which was put before the Select Committee on National Expenditure?

Mr. Hall: The recommendation has been considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS, FRANCE (EVACUATION).

Sir Ralph Glyn: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to state what steps have been taken by the Government, through the Consular Officers at Cannes, Mentone, Nice and other Southern French towns, to assist in the evacuation of British subjects, many of them invalids and wounded, who have found themselves stranded?

Mr. Butler: Many thousands of British subjects who wished to leave and were prepared to face the hazards and hardships involved have been evacuated from France, including a large number from the area in question. I am advised, however, that it would not be in the public interest at this moment to disclose what steps have been taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN'S OVERSEAS RECEP TION SCHEME (ADVISORY COUNCIL).

Major Braithwaite: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Advisory Council of the Children's Overseas Reception Scheme has been appointed yet, and, if so, whether it has commenced work?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. The Advisory Council referred to by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in his statement in the House on 19th June, has been appointed and consists of the following members. Perhaps the House will allow me to read the names of the members with the societies with which they are associated. I have already given a list of the Government members, with Lord Stamp as chairman, and there are the four Under-Secretaries of the Departments of Health, Education, Pensions and Colonies. The list is as follows:

The Right Honourable Lord Snell (Chairman), C.B.E., LL.D.
Miss Florence Horsbrugh, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Health.
Mr. J. Chuter Ede, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary, Board of Education.
Mr. J. Westwood, M.P., Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland.
Miss Ellen Wilkinson, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Pensions.
Mr. E. R. Appleton, Organizer of Empire Youth movements.
Mr. Cyril Bavin, Y.M.C.A.
Reverend John Bennett, Catholic Council of British Oversea Settlement.
The Countess of Bessborough, Chairman of Council, Society for Oversea Settlement of British Women.
Miss, Grace Browning, Girl Guide's Association.
Mr. Laurence Cadbury, O.B.E., M.A., Chairman, Cadbury Brothers, Limited, an authority on school and welfare problems.
Lieut.-Colonel Culshaw, Salvation Army.
Miss Doggett, O.B.E., League of Empire.
Miss Ellen Evans, Principal, The Glamorgan Training College: also appointed with special reference to Wales.
Captain G. F. Gracey, Save the Children's Fund.
Mr. Gordon Green, Fairbridge Farm School.
Mr. W. A. F. Hepburn, O.B.E., M.C., LL.D., Director of Education for Ayrshire, also appointed with special reference to Scotland.
Reverend S. W. Hughes, Free Church Council.
Reverend Canon H. E. Hyde, Church of England Council for Empire Settlement.
Miss M. F. Jobson, J.P., Member of Fife Education Authority and County Council; also appointed with special reference to Scotland.

Miss E. A. Jones, M.A., Headmistresses' Association.
Mr. P. J. Kirkpatrick, Dr. Barnardo's Homes.
Mr. Harold Legat, Boy Scouts' Association.
The Right Honourable Sir Ronald Lindsay, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., some time His Majesty's Ambassador to Washington.
Mr. W. A. Markham, M.A., Member of Executive National Children's Home and Orphanage.
Mrs. Norman, Vice-Chairman, Women's Voluntary Services.
Mrs. E. Parker, Ex-President, National Union of Teachers.
Dr. Donald Paterson, M.D., F.R.C.P., Physician, Children's Hospital, Great Ormond Street.
Miss Gladys Pott, C.B.E., ex-Chairman of Executive of Society for Oversea Settlement of British Women.
Mr. Brendan Quin, 1820 Memorial Settlement.
Sir Wm. Reardon Smith, Baronet, an authority on shipping; also appointed with special reference to Wales.
Miss Edith Thompson, C.B.E., Chairman of Executive, Society for the Oversea Settlement of British Women.

Then there is a Scottish section. This is a very great problem, not only as regards the Dominions, but maybe another country, and I thought it right to get as representative a Council as I could. With regard to Scotland, a Scottish Advisory Council has been appointed, which will meet at 27, St. Andrew's Square, Edinburgh 2, the address of the Scottish Branch of the Children's Overseas Reception Scheme. The Chairman of the Scottish Council will be the Right Honourable the Lord Provost of Glasgow, P. J. Dollan, Esq., and the other members will be:

Mr. Joseph Westwood, M.P., Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. A. L. Fletcher, B.A., former Director of Education for the County of Midlothian.
Miss Mary Tweedie, former Headmistress of the Edinburgh Ladies' College.
Mrs. McNab Shaw, a member of the Ayr County Council.
Miss Margaret Jobson, J.P., a member of the Fife County Council, and Fife Education Authority.
Mr. W. A. F. Hepburn, O.B.E., M.C., LL.D., Director of Education for Ayrshire,

and a representative of the Quarrier's Homes, Bridge of Weir, to be appointed. Mr. Joseph Westwood, M.P., Miss M. F. Jobson and Mr. W. A. F. Hepburn, besides being members of the Scottish Advisory Council, are also members of the Advisory Council which meets in London.
Members of the Advisory Council have, since the inception of the Children's Overseas Reception Scheme, been in daily session at the headquarters of the scheme.


Consideration has been given to the practical and detailed working of the arrangements involved and a large number of important recommendations have been made. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the untiring labours of members of the Council whose special qualifications, covering all aspects of child migration and welfare, have proved invaluable.

Mr. T. Smith: Is the Minister satisfied that a committee of this size is likely to reach decisions? Will he also keep in mind that this problem of evacuating children overseas to the Dominions and other places is not quite the same problem as taking young children out from Poor Law or other places in this country and settling them on the land in the Dominions?

Mr. Shakespeare: On the last point, I appreciate that aspect of the matter. On the first point, I have ample evidence that in the last five days the Advisory Council has come to a large number of decisions. It has divided itself into subcommittees.

Mr. Gallacher: How many?

Mr. Shakespeare: I should not like to say. These sub-committees have been working day and night, so it appears that the hon. Gentleman will not be dissatisfied in that respect.

Viscountess Astor: How many of these people who are going to settle these children in the Dominions and other places have ever been to those countries and know anything about conditions over there? Before the Government announced the scheme did they make any contacts with the Minister of Economic Warfare and the Minister of Shipping? Does not the Minister realise that they have already got into a terrific jam and that this huge committee shows that the Government have not thought it out?

Mr. Shakespeare: The Noble Lady's Question is so full of inaccuracies that I would rather deal with it, if I may, during Debate, which I hope will be fixed for next week.

Viscountess Astor: It may be too late.

Mr. Shakespeare: I could not deal with it at Question time. I accept none of the Noble Lady's statements.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is it not very desirable that before this Council is passed some consideration should be given to some working-class women who have children being appointed?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS FORCES (ADMISSION TO PALACE OF WESTMINSTER).

Mr. Denville: On a point of Order. I would like to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, as to who is responsible for the admission of soldiers who have come many thousands of miles across the seas and desire admission to the House to look over it. Under the present arrangements it is not possible for anything like the number who desire to visit the House of Commons to do so. I myself to-day saw hundreds turned away. I understand that two of our soldiers can be admitted if accompanied by a Member. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if there is any means by which you can make it possible for all these men from whatever part of the British Empire they come to see what they have come so many miles across the ocean to see.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the point which the hon. Member has raised, but it is not quite so easy as it may appear to deal with large numbers of people who wish to be shown round this House, especially at the present moment. The question is receiving my attention. My attention has been called to it before, and I am considering it. I will do what I can to deal with the position, but it is not so easy as it may appear.

Mr. Thorne: Is not one of the difficulties that of finding anyone who is willing to take a party round?

Mr. Speaker: That is not my experience.

BILLS PRESENTED.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SALVAGE) BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the right of the Crown to claim salvage," presented by Sir Victor Warrender; supported by Mr. Cross, Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Shakespeare; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL

"to increase the rates of benefit and contributions payable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, to amend Section thirty-five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, Part II of the First Schedule thereto, and Section thirty-six of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Bevin; supported by the Solicitor-General, Captain Crookshank and Mr. Assheton; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

PARLIAMENTARY PUBLICATIONS.

Mr. Speaker: I have given consideration to the recommendations in the Second Report of the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports, and, after inquiries made through the usual channels, I have authorised certain changes in the printing and circulation of Parliamentary publications. Generally speaking, these changes conform to the recommendations of the Select Committee, with the following modifications. (1) The recommendation to discontinue, except on payment, the supply to Members of sessional sets of bound volumes of Hansard, will not prevent the supply of such sets to those offices inside the House which have hitherto received them. (2) The Select Committee recommend, in paragraph 6 of their report, that full circulation to Members at their private addresses should be confined to Votes and Proceedings, copies of Bills as presented, Hansard and a weekly pink demand form. I think it would be for the convenience of the House that Government White Papers, provided that they are certified as important by the presenting Departments, should be included in the full circulation, and thus be available to all Members without special application.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Taunton Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide facilities in Scotland for the appointment and confirmation of

executors of persons engaged in war service during the present war." [Confirmation of Executors (War Service) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Orders of the Day — INDIA AND BURMA (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for India and Burma (Mr. Amery): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill may disappoint those Members who, possibly, have been misled by newspaper headlines to expect some Measure of major constitutional import. The present Bill has no constitutional significance. It is, in the main, a Measure of insurance, concerned with making provision for overcoming certain difficulties of a technical character in the event of the complete interruption of communications between India and this country. It does, however, include one substantive provision of some importance; and I will deal with that first.
The Government of India have come to the conclusion that, for the purposes of the urgent expansion of India's war effort, it has now become necessary, and, indeed, urgent, to follow the example of this country, and to introduce compulsory service for military, and in certain cases for civil industrial, purposes. To do so in regard to Indian British subjects is within the competence and authority of the Government of India, and the appropriate Ordinance is to be issued very shortly by the Governor-General. On the other hand, it is beyond the competence of the Government of India to conscript European British subjects. This is due to the operation of Section 110 of the Act of 1935, which excludes from the purview of the Indian Legislature, and, therefore, also from the parallel and co-extensive ordinance-making power of the Governor-General, any matter which affects the Army Act, the Air Force Act or the Naval Discipline Act. These Acts are so framed as to cover European British subjects in India, Indian British subjects being specifically excluded from them. Any Measure which calls up a European British subject for military service therefore comes within the purview of these Acts, and, therefore, in the words of Section 110 of the Government of

India Act affects the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts.
Accordingly, the authority of Parliament here is required to enable the necessary action to be taken in India, and the present Bill proposes to do this by Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Clause 1, which temporarily—I would have the House note the word "temporarily"—free the Governor-General from the restrictions of Section 110, and the consequential restrictions of Section 111, of the Government of India Act. The House will observe that this modification of the Government of India Act is strictly limited in more than one direction. In the first place, it extends not to the Indian Legislature, but only to the Governor-General acting, as the phrase is, "in his discretion"—that is to say, still under the general direction of the Secretary of State, and, therefore, within the ultimate purview and control of this House. In the second instance, the modification is only temporary, and special authority is given to the Governor-General to deal with the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts only within the emergency period referred to in Clause 3—about which I shall have a word to say presently.
There is, however, a feature in Subsection (3) of Clause 1—in line 20 and subsequent lines—to which I ought to draw the attention of the House. Normally, the ordinance-making power of the Governor-General under Section 72 of the Government of India Act extends only for six months. It would be obviously inconvenient for all concerned if a Measure enforcing military service in a war the duration of which none of us can foresee, were limited to six months. Consequently, that passage in Sub-section (3) frees those, and only those, of the Governor-General's ordinances which affect the disciplinary Acts from this limitation. By passing Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Clause 1, this House will give the Governor-General the power which he desires to introduce immediately a Measure of compulsory service for European British subjects in India, and to extend the period of that Measure beyond the emergency period referred to in Sub-section (3). The Governor-General by an earlier Act this year took provisions for the calling-up of Europeans for examination as to their fitness and willingness to undertake various forms of national service.
In the urgent circumstances of the present need for a great expansion of India's forces and in particular of India's munitions industry, it has been found that that Act has not produced a sufficient number of volunteers, and the Ordinance which the Governor-General proposes to introduce, with the approval of this House, will enable him to call Europeans up compulsorily. It is proposed that they should be called up for examination between the ages of 18 and 50 and then served with notice calling upon them to undertake Service requirements. On the military side they will, normally, be posted in the first instance to the British Army in India and then transferred to whatever particular Service they are most fitted to render, or, as the case may be, to officer training units for the purpose of being subsequently granted combatant commissions. Conscientious objectors are to be exempted on the same lines as in this country, subject always to the obligation to fulfil some national service not affecting their conscience or directly dealing with military service. There will be, as is the case here, in this matter, an appeal from the decision of the first committee conducting the examination.
That is the only measure contemplated in the present Bill which is not purely contingent and hypothetical, but we have to make provision against certain dangers which, though they have not occurred yet, may be very real. The Government of India Act envisaged as the normal situation of its application, a condition of things under which there was free and easy and rapid communication between this country and India. Obviously that is not the situation to-day or the situation with which we may be faced at any moment. Now that enemy forces intervene between us and India in the Mediterranean and communication, whether by sea or by air, has to take a very circuitous route round Africa, and when it is possible that cable communications may be cut, we have to envisage a situation in which it may be impossible, for considerable periods, to maintain direct and continuous communication with India.

Earl Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend intend—or would it be out of order for him to do so on this

rather technical Bill—to give us any idea of what is being done on the very important question of the military contribution of India towards the Empire's war effort?

Mr. Amery: I think that subject would be outside the scope of the present Bill and would be better discussed on another occasion. I should welcome the occasion of saying something on that question, but I do not think it is appropriate to do so on this Bill. The discussion of the Bill must, obviously, be limited in character, and I hope to get the assent of the House to the Bill with the least possible delay. As I have said, the provisions of the Government of India Act were based on the assumption of uninterrupted communication. They require for instance that certain matters, including matters of great urgency, should be referred by the Governor-General to His Majesty's Government here, or they may specifically require action to be taken in this country, whether by Parliament or by some other authority, and this action if it is to have any effect must be taken in time. The only way of meeting the difficulty is to enable the Governor-General, as a purely temporary measure and during the existence of the present emergency, and at a moment when communication may become impossible, to take action himself.
The matters which lie beyond the scope of any authority in India under the Government of India Act fall into three categories, and these are covered, respectively, by Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill. There is, first, the powers of making appointments and removals which are reserved to His Majesty. Secondly, there is the amendment of Orders-in-Council made under the Government of India Act. These can only be amended by the King in Council after draft amending Orders have secured the approval of both Houses of Parliament. There is, further, the amendment of rules relating to certain public services, which can only be done by the Secretary of State himself. The third category is that of legislation affecting the disciplinary Acts governing the Armed Forces of the Crown, with which I have already dealt.
The first category, that dealing with appointments or removals, covers such a case, for instance, as that of the sudden


death of a Governor or judge of the High Court. In the case of the sudden death of a Governor, it may be physically impossible to secure the warrant and sign-manual here and to communicate that warrant to India for the appointment of a successor. In that event it would be impossible for the very important functions of a Governor—doubly important at the present time—to be exercised by anyone. Under Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 that vacancy can be filled by the Governor-General himself. I should explain that the contingency of the demise or incapacity of the Governor-General himself is already provided for in Section 90 of the Government of India Act and there is a similar provision in the case of the demise or incapacity of the Governor of Burma. With regard to Orders-in-Council and rules, the House will remember that a considerable body of amending Orders-in-Council, subsidiary legislation and rules of all kind has been passed since 1935. It may be found urgently and vitally necessary, in order to meet war conditions, to make some further subsidiary amendments in one or other of these Orders-in-Council, or rules, and under the provisions of the Bill, it will be possible to do so in the contingency of the interruption of communication. The third Sub-section I have dealt with already.
All the provisions of the Bill, except those referring to the Ordinance, now intended for immediate application, with regard to the compulsory service of Europeans in India, are purely contingent provisions. They are all governed by Clause 4 of the Bill, which specifically provides that they can only be exercised by tile Governor-General or the Governor of Burma as the case may be, if, in either case, it is essential that they should be exercised and that reference to the Secretary of State would cause undue delay—in other words, in the contingency of a really serious physical interruption of communications. Further, they are limited in duration to the period of emergency referred to in Clause 3. That is the period during which serious interruption of communication may reasonably be feared. It need not necessarily be co-extensive with the duration of the war. We may have got away from the present dangerous situation, and re-established communication beyond the fear of serious interruption, before the war has actually ended. That is why Clause 3 leaves the

termination of the period of emergency to a special Order-in-Council, and does not make it co-extensive with the duration of the war.
Perhaps it would be convenient to refer briefly to Clause 2, which deals with the similar but not altogether identical situation in Burma. It will be observed that Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 makes no provision for the extension of any ordinance under that Clause beyond six months. That is due to the fact that the Governor of Burma already, under the Government of Burma Act, enjoys the power of the further prolongation for six months of ordinances and also the power to issue Governor's Acts without any limitation of time. Further, in the same Sub-section there is a reference, not only to the Army Act, the Air Force Act and the Naval Discipline Act, but also to "any similar law enacted by a competent authority in India." That is due to the fact that the Government of Burma Act excludes from Burman legislative power not only matters affecting the British disciplinary Acts, but also any corresponding Indian disciplinary Acts. Sub-section (5) of Clause 2 is required for this reason: the existing Instrument of Instructions to the Governor requires him to submit certain classes of Bills for the signification of the Crown's pleasure and does not give him power to assent to them directly. This Instrument of Instructions can only be amended with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the approval of this House is required under Subsection (5) of Clause 2 to enable the Governor, in case of necessity, to assent directly to urgent Bills, within these categories, without having to refer them home for the assent of the Crown.
If I might sum up the Bill, it asks for the authority of Parliament in two respects: First, in order to enable the Governor-General of India or if the situation demands it the Governor of Burma, to call on European British subjects in India and Burma to render service to their country or to the Empire; and, secondly, on the more purely technical point, namely, the temporary waiving, in certain emergencies, against which I think we are bound to insure, even if we hope they may never actually occur, of certain existing legislative restrictions upon the power of the Governor-General and the Governor of Burma with respect


to appointments, amendments of Orders-in-Council and rules, and the issue of ordinances affecting the disciplinary Acts. It will be seen that the Bill, while it has no constitutional significance, is yet of considerable urgency and importance in enabling India to get ahead with the work of contributing to its own defence and the defence of the common cause. I hope, therefore, it will meet with the approval of the House.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sure we have all listened with great interest and attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, whom we all congratulate upon holding his present office and to whom we offer our best wishes that, during his tenure of that office, our relationship with the great peoples of India may be strengthened. As far as I have been able to study the provisions of the Bill, it appears to me that no great constitutional principles are involved in it. I think the House must recognise that it is important, owing to the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman envisages, that we should have a Bill of this kind. We must be prepared to meet an emergency and we cannot tell when such an emergency may arise. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that Clause 4 of the Bill lays down that this change of authority is not to take place now, but only if and when an emergency occurs. The precise words which convey that meaning are:
And only if it appears to him that it is essential.
On paper, that really confers upon the Governor-General the discretion, but I suppose we may take it that the Governor-General, as long as communications exist between him and the Secretary of State, naturally will not exceed his authority. I think, therefore, the House may accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that it is the obvious intention of the Bill that the present position will continue until the emergency actually arises. As I understand the subsidiary provision of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has also made reference, it enables conscription to be imposed upon British subjects in British India, and does not go beyond that, such powers as there may

be for dealing with Indian subjects in British India not being affected in any way by this Measure. Clearly, the Government are right, seeing that we have conscription for British subjects inside this country, to take powers for the conscription of British residents in British India.
I gather, by inference, from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the position of Indian subjects is not directly or even indirectly affected in any way by this Measure. He made it clear with regard to conscription to which I have already referred. He implied by inference that this Bill did not affect their position, but it is desirable in the public interest that a statement should be made from the Government Bench explicitly stating that to be the case. I would like to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. We all know that the peoples of different parts of the British Empire are very sensitive to changes which are effected in this House with regard to their status and position, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether any effort has been made already to explain to leading personages in India—it is the politicians in particular of whom I am thinking—the precise nature and implications of this Measure. If that has not already been done, I hope that he will not allow the statement in this House to be sufficient, but that steps will be taken in India to make it clear to Indian subjects there that their liberties are riot in any way affected by this Measure. That is very important, because we should at this time not only be able to put our hands on our hearts and say that wt are not doing anything contrary to their interests, but it should be clear to them that such is the case. I hope, if that has not already been done, that the right hon. Gentleman, or somebody speaking from the Front Bench opposite, will tell us that it will be done.
There remains only the point which has been raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), in regard to the interest which this, House naturally takes in matters relating to the contribution of India to the war. I do not know in what form an opportunity might be provided—whether it will be possible in the few days left for Supply to take even half a day—for a full dis-


cussion on Indian affairs, but perhaps it might be found possible, either on the Adjournment Motion or in some other way, for an authoritative statement to be made by the Government on what is, clearly, a very important subject.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I would like at once to associate myself with the remarks which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) when he said with what pleasure we had heard the right hon. Gentleman speaking from the Front Bench to-day as Secretary of State for India. I considered myself personally fortunate in that, by a lucky chance, the other evening, I happened to hear the right hon. Gentleman's address on Magna Charta. It seems to me that in what he said on that occasion, he placed India's relation to the whole war and the Empire in its proper perspective, in a way in which not all of us have done in the past. I felt as I heard those words that there was a new approach to India, and one with which I, at all events, found myself in complete sympathy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make progress on that line during his term of office. I am sure that I can speak for everyone in the House in expressing that hope.
I do not imagine that the House will have any difficulty in not only giving the Bill a Second Reading but allowing its passage through the further stages for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked. It is a technical Bill and one of which we should never have heard, except for the extraordinary days in which we are living, and the possibility of emergencies arising, of which we have no idea at the present time, which may call for prompt and urgent action. We in the House of Commons cannot overlook the fact that it conveys great powers to the Viceroy and the Governor-General and that we in this House surrender some of the provisions which we laid down in the Government of India Act, 1935. If anyone in India or elsewhere were to cavil at what is being proposed it would be an adequate answer to say that any surrender of power which is taking place in this respect, is nothing compared with the surrender of power which we have already made in this House to the Government of

this country in our own domestic affairs. At all events that is how it appears to me. We know that the powers to be exercised by the Governor-General are to be exercised only if in his judgment undue delay of an injurious character would result from the usual Parliamentary consultation and reference. Therefore, I think that this Bill might be called a Bill for the purpose of trusting the man on the spot, at a time when he and he only may be in a position to judge what an immediate emergency requires in the interests of the State and of the people of India.
I was a little disappointed at first, to find that the powers given to the Governor-General are to be exercised in his own discretion. It seemed to disturb the possible course of development of the hopeful elements which appeared to be arising in the situation at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh spoke of necessary consultation, and I should judge, speaking not as one with authority or special knowledge, but as a Member of this House with responsibility for Indian affairs, that there is a common agreement running throughout all sections of Indian opinion as to the necessity of resisting a menace which would destroy all the individual culture and ideals which different Indian sections hold. It seemed to me that from that common agreement, there might arise some instrument of co-operation which could not be achieved by the Governor-General acting in his own discretion. I hoped that there might arise some method of co-operation in mutual authority in the sort of atmosphere spread by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Magna Charta and that the development of confidence through mutual contacts would soften the asperities and difficulties which have marked some aspects of Indian politics. It was a hope which I had in mind and I thought, at first sight, it might be nullified by the fact that these powers are to be exercised by the Governor-General in his discretion. As the right hon. Gentleman spoke to-day, however, I realised the limited scope of this Bill, and I do not dissent from what is being done. Furthermore, he expressed the hope that events may move in India in a more hopeful atmosphere, and perhaps in a more fruitful ground for experiment and advance, so that India may soon play that vital part which the right


hon. Gentleman foreshadowed in the determination of its own constitution.
I would mention one thing, of which, it struck me, we in Western Europe might take notice in the history of the last few weeks. It was an observation by the Leader of Congress, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, in which he said that it would not be within the dignity of India to seek to put pressure on Britain while we were engaged in a struggle such as we are engaged at the present time. I think that that is one of the most hopeful opinions that has come out of India in recent times. It is something in which India might take pride, in contrast to some of the events in Europe in recent weeks. Speaking for my hon. and right hon. Friends I can say that we shall do everything we can to facilitate the passage of this Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: My right hon. Friend who introduced this Bill referred to it as a technical Measure. It certainly is that, but it is also a far-reaching Measure and I think the House should appreciate that we are doing something here which, although it is, I agree, entirely necessary in the circumstances in which we are living, may make a certain and definite difference, at first sight, to a number of people in India. There are in India numerous officers in the service of the Secretary of State. They are appointed by the Secretary of State, their terms of service are laid down by him and they have an appeal to him in the event of any difficulty or dispute. Under the terms of this Bill these officers, if the Act becomes operative, will have such points decided by the Governor-General under his discretion and powers. I agree that in present circumstances no other course is possible, and I do not want in any way to oppose this Bill, but I should like it to be made clear that any decision given by the Governor-General in connection with the conditions of service of these officers will be on the terms which have been previously laid down by the Secretary of State so far as is possible. I think it would be well, and in the interests of many officers in India who look to the Secretary of State for their protection, that there should be an under-

standing that they will have decisions based on the rules which the Secretary of State has previously laid down unless new circumstances of an entirely different character have arisen in the meantime. I assume that this will be the case.
There is only one other point to which I wish to make reference, and it concerns a remark made by my right hon. Friend. He said that this Bill freed the Governor-General, when necessary, from reference to the Secretary of State, but when he came to deal with Clause 1, Sub-section (3) it appeared to me that he put a limitation, in that particular case, on the Governor-General's powers to act without that consultation. It should be made clear, if that is necessary, that under Sub-section (3) the same power exists to act without reference. My right hon. Friend's speech was not quite clear to me on this one point, and perhaps not clear to everybody in the House. Regarding the speech of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), with whose hopes for future co-operation in India I am in entire agreement, I think he will agree on reconsideration that in this Bill powers must be in the hands of the Governor-General at his discretion. They cannot possibly be conferred in any other way. This is a question of transferring from one individual here, to his representative in India, temporary authority. I hope and believe with him that India's effort in the war will be wholehearted. There is no doubt that whatever political differences may exist, all parties in India are convinced that the war must be won, not only for the freedom of this country but of India itself.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think that on all sides expression has been given to the great satisfaction felt at seeing the right hon. Gentleman in the position he now occupies. While I recognise the necessity for some measure to meet the grave emergency that has arisen, I cannot but regret that the first important Measure he should have to bring forward as Secretary of State should be one of this character which cannot express, by its very nature, some of those aims which he has already made so clear to us in this country and, I hope, to our fellow citizens in India.
I cannot help hoping that this Measure, when it gets to another place, may receive some modification which will make clear the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman has shown in some of his public utterances, namely, that which looks to cooperation with India in the great work of transition from the present stage to a stage in which India will be equal in all respects with other great self-governing Dominions. It is because the Bill does not give any evidence of that, in its nature, that I feel great regret that it should be the first Measure which the Secretary of State has introduced in his period of office. It is extremely difficult for a layman to understand; it is necessary to read Section after Section of the Act of 1935, and even then if we had not had an explanation from the Secretary of State I think all would agree that it would hardly be fully intelligible. No one reading the Bill, on the face of it, woud realise that it contained a proposal to introduce conscription for European British subjects in India and that its other provisions were only intended to be used in special circumstances, which we all hope may never occur. I cannot help thinking that it was almost essential, if this Bill were to be properly understood by the House, that there should have been an explanatory memorandum accompanying it. This is only one of the many cases in recent times when very complex legislation put before the House could not be understood unless there was some explanatory memorandum. However, we have had a very helpful explanation from the Secretary of State.
I think we must realise fully the very important change which he has foreshadowed would result from the passing of this Bill with regard to the position of British subjects domiciled in Britain and resident in India. As an opponent of conscription in principle, I recognise that it is only fair that if conscription is adopted in this country, it should be applicable also to British people resident in India. But we ought to have an assurance that it shall be applied in the spirit in which it is applied in this country and that equal consideration will be paid to conscience. I think it is also rather regrettable that the age limit should not be the same for both countries. That is a question which will affect only British people resident in India. It does

not affect the principle of the Bill by which, in certain circumstances, special powers are given to the Governor-General over Indians. I think we have to recognise that the safeguards which are provided by the present Act, and which give this House and another place a special position of responsibility as guardians of the people in India in such periods of exceptional difficulty when the Governor-General has to act on his own responsibility, are removed and that we do not have any form provided in this Bill by which there will be any consultation with representative Indians or even such authorities as judges of the High Court before a decision is taken by the Governor-General in those special circumstances. Obviously it is intended to apply only when he cannot communicate with the Secretary of State, but surely there should be some provision by which consultation would take place and which would associate representative Indians. with the decision of the Governor-General.
We are giving up in this Bill to some extent our own trusteeship over the people of India, and we are putting nothing in its place. I do beg the Secretary of State to see that some steps shall be taken to secure that there should still be some machinery for review and consultation before the final executive decision of the Governor-General is made. I believe it would go a long way to satisfying Indian opinion if some such alteration could be made in this Measure, if not here, then in another place, because the right hon. Gentleman himself in that very memorable Magna Charta broadcast stated so clearly that what we were aiming at was not only full Dominion status for India, but also order and security during the period of transition to full and equal Dominion status. Even there he said that the maintenance of order and security, on the need for which he rightly insisted, could best be secured "not by dictation but by mutual agreement." I hope that in the spirit of those admirable words of his he may be able to reassure our Indian fellow subjects as to the purport of this Bill and the spirit in which its provisions will be carried out.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that one of the first things he has done as Secretary of State is to introduce powers in order that there may be con-


scription of British residents in India. It was my good fortune in the last war to spend the whole of my time in India and Mesopotamia, and both on service and on leave I and others saw the benefits, and heard of the disadvantages, of the voluntary system which operated then. I will not say much about it, because it would do no good that I should, but the disadvantages of the voluntary system lived for a good many years after the war among residents in British India. Many felt that the sacrifices they had made on behalf of their country had turned out to be very excessive indeed as compared with the fortunes of those who remained behind and did not serve. I am absolutely convinced that the introduction of these powers at this stage in the war is a matter for which everyone who knows the circumstances will be grateful. The powers are essentially in regard to a section of the population in which fair administration of compulsion will produce the benefits which the voluntary system did not produce in the last war.
Without being out of order, I should like to add my word to what has been said by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) that we shall have at an early date a general discussion on the effort of the Indian Empire and what India is doing. I feel sure it would be for the benefit of many people in this country and for the benefit of many who are serving in India, and also of Indians generally, that such a discussion should take place openly at an early date.
May I turn to what has been termed this "technical" Bill? There is one point I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider. It is perfectly true that if an emergency arises, under which the Governor-General is to exercise the powers given him by Clause 1, his right to exercise those powers is limited to the period defined or attempted to be defined in Clause 4. In Clause 1 there is an express reference to his right to make acting appointments. It seems to me that if he is in a position to exercise a power of appointment, he should not make appointments which will last beyond the emergency period. On the face of it, it would appear that he is given that power. Like the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), I

think it is more than likely that he would make more acting appointments than permanent appointments, but it appears that he could, if he thought fit, make senior appointments which would continue after the period of emergency had come to an end. I do not know enough about the matter to say whether it is a wise power to give, but, prima facie, it would appear to me that, with regard to appointments for which on certain occasions recourse is made to persons in this country and they are appointed to positions of importance in India, during the emergency period he would have a much smaller field from which to select the best man for a particular appointment. I suggest that at a later stage the Bill should be amended so that under the direction of the Secretary of State, which would be sufficient, certain appointments should be limited or come up for reconsideration within six months after the termination of the period of emergency.
Apart from that, I have no fault to find with the Bill. I always listen to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) with interest, but I am bound to say that in a time of emergency like this it seems to me that whatever consultation is exercised the legal power and the last word must be given to the Governor-General so that he may act promptly.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: May I join with other hon. Members in sincerely congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on taking his high office, and express the earnest hope that the difficult problems which he and his predecessors have had to face will be, in some measure, solved, and that we shall find a new vista opening for India and our own country? I am sure that he will do his best in that direction and I can assure him of our cooperation. It has been said that this is a very technical Bill. I am willing to accept that interpretation. Nevertheless, there are one or two factors associated with its technicalities which have a certain significance. I cannot agree that the Bill affects only British subjects. Surely it affects Indian subjects in so far as they may, in certain circumstances, which we hope will not arise, see concentrated autocratic home rule established overnight.


The Bill confers considerable powers on the Governor-General which enables him, for the time being, to administer the law in India, indeed, to exercise power over a very wide field. It is rather significant, and certainly unfortunate, that while up to now we have been unable to confer a wider measure of self-government on India, we find ourselves in this Bill conferring in certain circumstances extraordinary powers of self-government in India but concentrated in one person.
Surely that will affect the politically conscious part of the Indian people. Although it has been suggested that in its operation it will affect only British subjects in India I think that Clause 1 is capable of a much wider interpretation. Discretion is being given to the Governor-General which can be exercised in many ways, and I regret very much that, apparently, there has been no consultation with representative Indian opinion in India. I may be wrong, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will indicate whether in fact there has been any kind of informal consultation with any body of opinion in India with regard to this Bill. In the absence of any such consultation, I can only say that I regret that absence and Indians themselves also regret it. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) to the wise words of Mr. Nehru who has shown that he has the utmost good will towards this country, although he may criticise it in certain respects. It would have been encouraging if there had been some consultation with him and if necessary also with Mr. Jinnah and others who are representative of politically conscious India at the present moment. One hon. Member was concerned with the Bill in so far as it affects certain British officers. No doubt his point was a valid one, but I regret that he was apparently concerned only with British officers in India, who are in a minority, and had no word to say about the omission to consult Indian opinion itself.
I should like to know whether the Bill alters the position respecting Parliamentary Questions on India. Since the passing of the Act of 1935, certain questions have been transferred from the scope of this House to the Provincial Assemblies, and we have not been able to ask questions on them. Will it now be possible, if these powers are exercised by the

Governor-General, to ask questions of the Secretary of State in this House? It is rather an important point because it means that we may have no means at all, along democratic channels of airing grievances or getting necessary information. It may seem to some a small point but I think it is one upon which we should have some observations from the Secretary of State. What I have called "a concentrated form of home rule," although it may be necessary from the standpoint of logic and the present circumstances, will I trust not have to be operated. I hope we shall not find an emergency crisis arising in the next few months, in which it will be necessary for the Governor-General to use the powers given him by the Bill.
I notice that provision has been made for some attempt at consultation between the Governor-General and the Secretary of State. I realise that difficulties may arise of a grave character. I hope they are remote, but, even so, I want to emphasise that some attempt should be made by the Governor-General to consult with the Secretary of State. I also hope that, at an early date, we shall have an opportunity of discussing the affairs of India. There are many matters on which those interested in India would like to speak, and to hear what the Secretary of State has to say. We should like to hear him reveal his long-term policy and state his approach to these matters. The Bill will, of course, pass into law, and I merely say that it is regrettable that while we are taking this step and giving, in certain circumstances, great power to our British representative in India, up to now we have not been able to take the step of consulting politically conscious Indians, on the one hand, or making a move, more vigorously, towards real self-government in India on the other.

4.57 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: In the East there is a preliminary phrase "After compliments." Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India regard the compliments on his appointment as made, and the bouquet as thrown? At the outset, I should like to commend to the earnest attention of the Secretary of State the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). This is a technical Bill in many respects. It


is not quite so technical as the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) seemed to think to those who are conversant with their Indian history and with the Act of 1935. But there are two special reasons why the suggestion that a clarifying statement should go out, should receive the attention of the Secretary of State for India. One is that unfortunately a news agency has spread abroad the story that the Secretary of State is introducing a Bill to make wide and drastic alterations in the constitutional Government of India. That impression has got abroad and it may persist unless the exact purpose of this Bill is very accurately presented in simple language. The other reason is that it is of paramount importance to make as clear as it is possible to make it, that this Bill in no sense impinges on the fixed determination of the Government and of this House to use every means in their power to develop the constitution of India to full Dominion status in terms of the Statute of Westminster without any qualification whatever.
I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he will consider, before the Bill actually passes into law, putting in a statement in his own wise words something on the lines of the Preamble to the Act of 1919, setting forth clearly that British policy in India is absolutely unchanged and that this is merely an emergency Measure to meet emergency conditions. Nobody can know anything about the conditions of communications between Great Britain and India without realising the paramount importance of this Bill. At the present time, air communications are interrupted and nobody knows when they can be resumed. To get an answer to a letter sent to India at the present time may take anything from six weeks to two months, or possibly even longer than that in special circumstances. Therefore, anybody who realises what the position is must see the direct importance of giving the head of the Government in India power to act with full authority and with swiftness if an emergency arises.
As I read the Bill, I think that in effect it may be described in this way. It hands over to the Viceroy and the Governor-General, in a state of emergency, powers which are now vested in the Secretary of State. I do not see that on the constitu-

tional side it goes appreciably beyond that. It does another thing, it provides for the conscription of European British subjects in India. I have listened to the comment made upon that with amazement. Many hon. Members seem to be under the impression that that is a new condition in India. It is nothing of the sort. European British subjects in India were conscripted during the last war. I forget whether the Measure came into force in 1914 or in 1915, but the Indian Defence Force under obligatory military service operated throughout the greater part of the last war, and I operated under it myself. I was not actually conscripted because I was serving before the Act came into force, but compulsory military service for home defence was imposed upon European British subjects in India throughout the greater part of the last war; it is, therefore, no new condition. The other point is that, I understand, this Bill extends that power to industrial conscription. I was on a committee at Simla in June or July, 1918, when that very issue was under discussion, and determination to adopt it was postponed only because the Armistice came rather earlier than was expected.
On these grounds I give my support unhesitatingly to the Bill, not only because it is a timely and imperative Measure, but because it is one without which, in time of emergency, we might find the executive authority of the Government in India very seriously impaired. But in giving that support I venture to reiterate the desire that in the clearest possible language, and in the most generous terms, my right hon. Friend will associate with the Bill a message stating exactly what it is; making clear to the Indian political mind exactly how it has come about; and explaining that it in no way affects the determination of the House, and of all parties, to look forward to the attainment of full status for India within the Empire as the proudest day in our history and one of the greatest days in our connection with that land.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State on the lucid manner in which he has explained to us the terms of this Bill. As I understand the Bill, it is not a question of our trying to satisfy Indian opinion, for the Bill does not deal with that matter.


It is a question of the delegation of power in order that, in an emergency, the Governor-General will be able to do the things that are necessary. The Bill also deals with conscription. I do not think that European British subjects in India would desire any favouritism; I am sure that such men, in whatever part of the world they may be, will not want to receive any more favourable treatment than is received by the men at home. I do not know whether it would be right for the Secretary of State to give us any figures, but I assume that the conscription provided for under this Bill will bring a military force into operation. From the point of view of India, I do not see that that will bring any great number of men, and I do not think that we can begin to think that, from the military point of view, our problem will be solved.
From the administrative point of view, however, persons of British nationality who come under the Bill may be used in India in the industrial field. I am wondering whether those British subjects who are so conscripted can be utilised in India in the industrial field, for the purpose of furnishing us with the things which are so essential to us. I cannot see the utility of the Bill in this respect unless it is for that purpose. I can understand that it is necessary to give the Governor-General these powers, and if the second purpose of the Bill is to enable British subjects in India to be soldiers of the Empire in the industrial field, the Measure is a useful one. What I should like to know is whether any of those British subjects in India may be transferred to England or whether the provision is entirely to meet the position in India. I should imagine that to denude any particular area of the Empire of such men and to transfer them to the Motherland would be dangerous at any time, but at no time would it be more so than at present, when it is essential that such men should be located in the places of which they have special local knowledge. I should lament the transference at the present time of any European British subjects from India to this country. Those who are now working in India have particular knowledge of the Indian people, and to make any transference of them would be dangerous. I feel that if the industrial machine is fully working those who are on the spot, although they may be conscripted, will

be better located there than in the Motherland.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Amery: I am very grateful to the House for the friendly reception it has given to this Bill, and also for the friendly reception it has given me at the beginning of a task the difficulty of which I and the House would be the last to underrate. May I at the outset respond to the question put to me by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and other hon. Members as to the effect of this Bill upon Indian British subjects, upon the Indian Legislature, and upon the powers and status of India in her progress towards self-government. This Bill affects none of those things. It does not impinge in any way upon the status of any Indian British subject or upon any of those powers which, under the India Act, are within the purview either of the Provincial Governments or the Central Government in India. Nor does it interfere in any way with consultations with leading representatives of Indian political opinion with regard to any matter concerning the defence, welfare or future constitution and development of India, nor with closer co-operation either in the Provincial Ministries or at the centre such as I appealed for in an answer which I gave in the House the other day, and such as Lord Linlithgow, the Governor-General, is at all times anxious to secure and is making special efforts to secure at this moment. In none of these respects does this Bill affect or in any way prejudice development towards that constitutional goal which has been again and again clearly reaffirmed by my predecessors and by myself in this House.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to understand that in no circumstances, if the Governor-General uses these powers, can he suspend the existing constitution of India in any respect?

Mr. Amery: No, they do not affect the existing constitution of India in relation to India in any respect. On the other hand, I think it would hardly be advisable, in a Measure of this purely technical character, to introduce a general preamble merely reasserting what has been said before. After all, a little later this evening I shall move the Second Reading of another Bill of a purely technical


character also bearing entirely upon European British subjects in India—the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Bill. I think it would be inappropriate if a general preamble referring to our political ideals in India were inserted in that. If I may say so, it would cheapen the sincerity of our declarations if they were to be introduced in general terms whenever any Bill bearing upon India came before the House. On the other hand, clearly it would be undesirable to introduce into a technical Measure of this sort definite matters of constitutional progress which not only require further thought here, but also require at any rate some further advance towards agreement in India itself.
This Bill, in fact, deals only with matters that were already reserved to this House in its relations with the Executive Government of India. In the first place, it gives definite authority from this House to the Governor-General, in matters affecting the Army Act, the Air Force Act, or the Naval Discipline Act, to frame ordinances which apply only to those who are concerned, namely, European British subjects. It has no effect upon Indian British subjects, either in regard to the original ordinance, its prolongation, or to any amending orders which may be introduced. It is strictly limited in its scope. That applies to all the other provisions of this Measure.
I think it would be a great exaggeration to suggest, as the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) did, that this Measure confers a wide measure of autocratic home rule on the Governor-General. Apart from this specific permission which we are giving to the Governor-General to frame ordinances affecting the military service of Europeans in India, it applies only to a particular emergency which might arise within a wider emergency period. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 and Clause 4 between them, assure that it is only when it is physically impossible for the Governor-General, or the Governor of Burma, as the case may be, to secure the permission or the necessary authority normally required that he is free to act under his own discretion during the continuance of that particular emergency. That does not in any way diminish the general control of the Secretary of State or of this House if the Governor-General

in such an emergency took a line inconsistent with the general policy of the Government. That would naturally be open to amendment as soon as communications were opened. I think that would relieve the anxieties of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) that the Civil Service in India might be affected by any minor amendments which might take place during such an emergency.
The same would also broadly apply to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) in regard to appointments. I have no doubt that whenever it is convenient appointments may be made temporarily if need for them should arise in such an emergency. But I would ask the House to remember that to make an appointment of a judge of the High Court for a month or two, or a Governor of a Province, would obviously involve great inconveniences. Further, in regard to almost all the prospective appointments of any importance, correspondence passes, often months beforehand, between the Governor-General and the Secretary of State, and in nine cases out of ten, the Governor-General already knows the Secretary of State's views about prospective appointments. Consequently, this Measure confers on the Governor-General a mere technical authority to act. The same applies equally, although, naturally, it is a matter for the decision of the Chair, with regard to Questions. I cannot suppose that anything done in a moment of emergency by the Governor-General, or the Governor of Burma, would be outside the purview of the House by question or debate after the emergency was over.
I regret that it is a Measure which, on the face of it, looks very complicated, and I see that the Press has suggested that it might be of a more far-reaching character. I am inclined to bow to the criticism of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) that it might have been an advantage to have issued a small explanatory memorandum beforehand. Another point which has been raised in the Debate has been the desire expressed in more than one quarter that the subject of India's contribution to the common effort during the war might before long be an occasion for discussion. That is a matter concerning the general business of the House and is outside my


control. As far as I am concerned, I should, naturally, welcome an occasion to let the House know what is being done in India and what we hope to do.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1 (Provisions as to India).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Harvey: Under the present arrangement, which will be superseded for the emergency by the provisions of this Bill, this House has the duty, along with another place, not only of making an Address to the Crown on the question of any draft Ordinance praying that it be confirmed, but also the power of making suggestions for an amended draft. There is no provision for any consideration of Amendments of an Ordinance under this Clause. I do not know whether the Secretary of State can say what the position will be, for instance, in regard to the Ordinance for compulsory military service in India. If this Bill had not been introduced, this House would have had an opportunity not only of discussing the draft Ordinance but also of suggesting amendments. I take it that that would no longer be the case, under this Clause, although I suppose it will be possible to ask questions in this House relating to this Ordinance and to obtain information from the Secretary of State. Perhaps also it would be possible on the Adjournment Motion to suggest amendments in case of need.

Mr. Amery: I do not think that, apart from an emergency situation, the powers of this House are in any way diminished. This House has given authority for the Governor-General to issue an Ordinance and we can always discuss the character of that Ordinance if there is a wish to do so.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Reference to be made to Secretary of State.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Harvey: I should like to ask for information in regard to a Sub-section of this Clause which also occurs in the India Act of 1935 and in the Burma Act of 1935. To a layman, it is one of those Sub-sections which seem to imply that if a Governor-General does an illegal act, it shall stand as legal and no one shall question its legality. That is a provision extremely difficult to understand, and I should like to ask what is the purpose of Sub-section (2), namely, that:
The validity of anything done by the Governor-General or Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that it was done otherwise than in accordance with the provision of this Section.
There must be some reason which does not appear on the surface for this provision. But unless there is a good reason, I do not see why it should be included in the Bill, even though it occurs in a previous Act.

Mr. Amery: The reason, I think, in each case was to prevent someone instituting vexatious proceedings and establishing that the whole course of action was no longer valid.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

5.25 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill amends the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. The general idea and scope of that Act is familiar to the House, and many Members are also aware of the difficult problems which have been presented in this field, particularly in regard to the effect on owners of business or business premises of evacuation. The


Bill deals with certain unrelated matters, and I think my best method of explaining it would be to deal with the different Clauses. It was found that certain courts were making orders restraining landlords from getting possession on default of payment of rent, conditional not only on payment by instalment of the rent in default, but also conditional on the punctual payment of future instalments as they became due. It seemed to us that it would be better that that should not be done because where one is dealing with rent payable, say, by quarterly instalments, it deprives the tenant of the right, if he is so minded, to have his position reconsidered in the light of each instalment, as it falls due and is claimed. For example, his position might have deteriorated since the time of the original judgment, and if the procedure of the Act had to be applied, he might be able to show, on the second occasion, that he was entitled to more lenient treatment than he had received on the first occasion.
Therefore, Clause 1, Sub-section (1) says that orders of that kind shall not be made. It excepts houses to which the Rent Restrictions Act applies. The reason for that is that a tenant of such a house has his own Statutory code of protection and under that code orders can be made, and, as far as I know, there has never been any complaint about it being conditional on punctual payment of future weekly rents. On the whole, in that area it is an advantage to have that power, otherwise the landlord might have to go back to the court each week, which would impose additional cost, in the last resort, on the tenant. In the area of weekly tenancies for dwelling houses the matter is, as far as my information goes, satisfactorily dealt with by the Rent Restrictions code. When we are dealing, as we are in these cases, with business premises, where rent is normally payable quarterly, we do not think that the court by way of conditions should deal with more than the sum for which the judgment exists.
The remaining Sub-sections of Clause 1 deal with a somewhat technical matter. When a landlord issues a writ for possession, for non-payment of rent, there being provisions for forfeiture in the circum-

stances under the lease, the writ acts as an automatic forfeiture; and, although the tenant may subsequently pay what is due, the lease remains forfeited unless he makes a separate application to the court for relief of forfeiture. These Sub-sections provide that the lease shall not be forfeited or treated as forfeited, so long as the order remains unenforcable, that is, so long as the conditions imposed by the court are fulfilled. Sub-section (2) deals with the future, and Sub-section (3) enables an application to be made in respect of past orders should it be necessary. Sub-section (4) deals with a special point where a sub-lessee is involved.
Clause 2 deals with a different matter. Under the general scheme of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act the court is dealing with a particular judgment for a particular debt. We know that if any of us is unfortunate enough to get into a position in which our liabilities exceed our resources, and are likely to continue to do so, there is the unpleasant process of going through the bankruptcy court. No one desires that the people for whose protection this Act is intended should have to go through that process unless it becomes absolutely necessary. It is difficult to have a halfway house, but it is desired that the courts should look round at the debtor's general position when they are considering whether there is inability to pay a debt owing to war circumstances. It may be that a debtor owes £20 and has £25, and if you put your eyes in blinkers and look at nothing else, you may ma say that there is not inability to pay. 'When, however, you consider his other liabilities and the fact that he has to live, and so on, it is clear there is inability to discharge that debt in full, although there may be the actual cash equivalent of it. It was never quite clear under the original Act that the court should have regard to the defendant's other liabilities. Many, if not most, courts did so, but we thought it would be an advantage to declare expressly that in considering the matters which the court has to consider it may take account of the liabilities, whether present or future, of the defendant.
There is a Sub-section in the Clause which provides that rules may make provision for the service of notice of any such application upon persons, other than the applicant, having claims against the


debtor. There may be cases in which the debtor may say that he has other liabilities and the plaintiff may not be satisfied that that is so. If rules are made, the other creditors may be brought before the court. There may be cases in which it is desirable to bring other creditors who have been behaving more reasonably than the man who resorted to legal proceedings, and it may be an advantage to the court that they should be present.
Clause 3 deals with a number of minor and rather technical points. Sub-section (1) refers to the words in the original Act, "the person liable to pay the rent." It was always intended that that person should be the defendant in the action, but where a lease has been assigned or where there is a guarantor, the assignor may be liable to pay the rent as well as the assignee in possession. That point arose and this Sub-section makes it clear that the person liable to pay the rent is the person against whom the judgment has been obtained. Sub-section (2) deals with the case, which might be called uncommon but which has arisen, in which two houses, originally let under one lease to one person, have subsequently, by an assignment of one house, come into the possession and occupation of different persons, although there is still only one lease. There being only one lease, a default by one person might give rise to a writ of forfeiture. This Sub-section enables the two parcels to be treated separately and the necessary apportionments to be made. Sub-section (3) provides that certain sheriff's charges, which obviously are costs in the ordinary case, should be included in the word "costs" in the Sub-section referred to in the original Act. Since this Bill was introduced in another place, our attention has been drawn to certain other matters, and we propose to ask the House to accept, on the Committee stage, certain Amendments dealing with those points.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I rise with a great deal of diffidence to follow the learned Attorney-General, because a great deal of what he has said is hieroglyphic to me. I noticed, however, that he was fortified by being able to read from a memorandum.

The Attorney-General: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: If that is not so, I must congratulate the right hon. and learned

Gentleman on being much more clever than I thought he was. Although under a great disadvantage in dealing with technical legal questions of this kind, I am authorised to say on behalf of those who sit behind me that we support this Measure. In principle, it is simple, and a person of ordinary common sense, of which I do not possess very much, can see that the Government have found out that there are people who are still suffering because the courts are interpreting the Act passed some time ago in a way in which Parliament never intended. Hon. Members will have come across some tragic cases of professional people and shopkeepers, for instance, who have suffered through the war, particularly in districts where there has been wholesale evacuation. In Manchester, for example, many shopkeepers have felt the pinch because their customers have gone away. An extension of the law to meet cases of that kind must be welcomed by everybody. I was surprised to learn that the courts do not take into account the future prospects of debtors in these cases. The courts ought to understand that when evacuation is finished and the people return to normal life again a business which is not paying its way to-day may again be a success.
While unemployment is declining among workpeople and artisans, it is not true of professional people, such as architects, surveyors, shopkeepers and the like. There are cases within my knowledge in which not one penny has been earned since the war began. If they fall into debt, it would be foolish if the courts were unable to take into account the future prospects of, say, an architect. We must presume that when this terrible war is over, building will begin again on a large scale, and I imagine that the architect will then come into his own again. The legal profession, I understand, are having a hard time, too. Some of them do not probably deserve a better time, and on looking round Members of Parliament of all parties who are in this profession, I often wonder how they earn their 6s. 8d. at all. All that apart, Parliament is doing the right thing in extending its generosity to these cases, because it is a startling thing that while unemployment is declining among the wage-earners, there is severe hardship among some small business and professional people, such as they have never


known before, and, I trust, will never know again, when this war is over.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for saying a kind word for the legal profession. It so rarely happens in this House that the slightest charity is extended to this deserving class. I am in favour of this Bill, and the only question that has occurred to me is why Clause 2 was found necessary. I had some experience in conducting these cases and I generally found that the court went into the financial situation of the applicant. There has been evidence not only of the actual debt and whether the applicant has the money to meet it, but as to other possible calls upon him, such as his rent and the standard of living he has to keep up. I wonder whether there have been actual difficulties in practice and whether any courts have found themselves in doubt whether they have power to take these other matters into consideration. It is right that they should do so, but I am wondering whether it was necessary to have a Clause to declare something which was inherently right.

5.44 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I welcome this Bill, for it will undoubtedly give greater protection to many people who are sorely in need of it. I would like to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to one or two points. It is true that the proprietor who has an action against him by a single landlord receives protection, but I want to put the case, which has already been brought to his notice, in which there are three landlords and one proprietor. An agreement has been come to on behalf of two of the landlords who have consented to a reduction of rent. The third landlord refuses to take a reduction and says the case must go to court. That landlord is able to prove conclusively that the man whom he is suing for rent is capable of paying him in full, and as the law stands the court has, I understand, no option but to give judgment in favour of that landlord. That does not seem to be right. The other landlords were prepared to be reasonable and to allow the man to carry on business on the basis of a reduced rent, but because this one landlord stands out then the whole arrangement falls to

the ground and the man's business is ruined. It is a very unjust proceeding, and I hope that 'between now and the Committee stage my right hon. and learned Friend will consider whether something cannot be done to give further protection to the proprietor of blocks of flats, under several landlords, who is placed in that position.
I want to refer also to other liabilities. Under the Act there is protection against a landlord obtaining possession of a house or flat or seizing the furniture in payment of debt and thereby rendering it impossible for the place to be inhabited, if let furnished, and so possibly destroying a business. Furniture is one of the necessary amenities in a flat, but there are other equally necessary amenities, like gas, water, electricity and to-day the telephone, and there is no thing in the Act which will give protection against either gas companies, the Metropolitan Water Board, electricity companies or the telephone service cutting off supplies. Those undertakings simply say, "You are unable to pay? All right; if you do not pay we cut off the supply." They use that threat. It does not seem to me that there is any difference between a landlord removing the furniture and a gas, water, or electricity undertaking cutting off supplies. Each is necessary if the flat is to continue to be habitable. If the water, gas, electricity or telephone service is cut off the flat is uninhabitable, just as it is uninhabitable if the furniture is removed.
There may be difficulties in this matter, but I know from information which I have received that gas companies have met this difficult situation in a very satisfactory manner, and have been reasonable and generous in dealing with their customers. Not so the Metropolitan Water Board, not so electricity undertakings, not so the telephone service. They have been adamant. On Second Reading I cannot give any details, but I hope to put them forward on Committee stage. There is much which these undertakings could do to help their customers, but they do not do it. It is no argument to say that a person might equally well ask for protection against the butcher, the baker and others from whom he obtains supplies. That is not a parallel case at all, because in such a case a customer can go to some other shop if the shop with which he has been trading will


not provide what he requires; whereas gas, water and electricity undertakings are monopolies protected by Statute and the customer can go nowhere else. If water, gas and electricity supplies are cut off a house is rendered absolutely uninhabitable, or a whole business may be destroyed, and the man may end up in the bankruptcy court because all possibility of his making a living has been taken away.
I sincerely hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider whether he cannot extend the scope of the Bill to cover these matters. There is a great deal which could be done to help these unfortunate people. Although my right hon. and learned Friend has told us that certain Amendments are to be introduced, we do not know what they are, and I do not know whether the points which I have raised are included, but if not I hope that some sympathetic consideration will be given to them.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: In every part of the House there is a welcome for this Bill, but I feel there is the qualification that we are sorry that it does not go further in meeting the difficulties of the people concerned. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because the problem is a very complicated one. There are hundreds of thousands of people whose businesses have been practically destroyed since the war broke out. They were people who had been able to make a decent living out of their businesses, but by reason of the evacuation or other circumstances they have found their living practically taken from them. I think there would be a general desire in the House that as far as possible such people should be put into the position of being able to maintain themselves in decency, and I suggest to the Attorney-General that the Government might consider whether they could not be assisted to move into the reception areas or whether financial or other assistance might not be given to them to start again elsewhere. I had also intended to raise the case of public utility services, gas, electricity and so on, which was dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). Those undertakings are in a monopolist position and

can bring pressure to bear on people by threatening to cut off supplies. I think something ought to be done to find a modus vivendi in those cases. If it were a case of supplies from the butcher or baker a person could take his custom somewhere else, but in the case of water, gas or electricity there is no other source of supply.
We ought also to consider how different creditors act. As the law stands I feel that a certain advantage is given to the more exorbitant creditor, and no one wishes that to be so. He threatens to take the debtor to court, and with the knowledge that he may be involved in law costs and other charges the debtor tries to appease him by making him some payment whereas other creditors who have not followed that course find themselves getting nothing. I realise that it is difficult to find a legal solution for all the difficulties involved, but I welcome the Bill, and I hope the Attorney-General will give sympathetic consideration to the representations which have been made to him by various bodies, for example the Small Traders Defence League and individuals, and that on the Committee stage he will be generous in accepting Amendments to help those who are in difficulty.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This Bill obviously has the full support of almost everyone in the House. It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he told us that he would introduce certain Amendments on the Committee stage, did not give us some indication of what those Amendments would be, because it is possible that it might have cut short the Debate which is now taking place. I should like to stress the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). We here, I am glad to say, try to protect the ordinary individual in this time of emergency against eviction and against his landlord; but that is only part of the story. There are large numbers of people who keep boarding-houses, lodging-houses and hotels who are going through a very, difficult time just now. They are people who for 20 or 30 years have never defaulted, who have prided themselves on the fact that they have always paid up to the last shilling, but now, as a result of the war, they find themselves completely


at the mercy of these public utility undertakings and large undertakings of another kind, and I beg the Attorney-General to see whether he cannot widen the scope of this Measure in order to give them more protection.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) that Clause 2 seems hardly necessary if, up to now, the courts have always taken into account all of an individual's liabilities when assessing his ability to pay. If Clause 2 is included in order to put this matter completely beyond doubt, why is the action made permissive and not obligatory? In page 2, line 42, we read that the appropriate court
may take account of other liabilites, whether present or future, of that person.
I know it is usual to make it permissive, but, as it is intended that the court should take notice of this Clause, why not make the matter obligatory and put in "must" for "may"?

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: Like everybody else, I welcome the Bill and the principle of the Bill. With the object of the Bill everybody is in complete sympathy. I take that object to be to prevent people from exercising, during the period of the war, remedies against others without first obtaining the leave of some court. I agree with all those who have spoken in thinking that this Bill does not remedy anything like all the deficiencies of the principal Act, and that the scope of the original Act was by no means wide enough to achieve the purpose that everybody wanted to see achieved. I do not want at this time, especially as the Attorney-General has indicated that a number of other points are to be added in Committee, to go into those matters, but I wish to make two suggestions of principle to the Attorney-General.
I have no doubt that this is not by any means the last of the amending Bills that will be required. As these provisions are operated, scores of small or smallish points arise, and are continually being brought to people's notice, and from time to time legislation is required. I want to suggest that it might be extremely useful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a small advisory com-

mittee continually reviewing the operation of this kind of legislation and making reports to him, so that the time-lag would be short and the period during which deficiencies existed in the scope and applicability of the legislation might be more quickly curtailed. It is impossible for injustice not to be done if we have to wait months for this to take place. Everybody who has to practise in these matters knows that dozens of small points cry out for some kind of readjustment.
The other suggestion is this. Is it not possible, for the purpose of this legislation, to increase largely the jurisdiction of the county courts, which are far more accustomed than is the High Court or a Master in the High Court, to dealing with debts and the collection of debts? The registrar and the judge of a county court have always had power, where the debt was under £20, to order that it might be paid by instalments, and in exercising that power they always have before them the creditor and the debtor and go very carefully, by viva voce evidence, into the actual means of the debtor and what it is reasonable to expect him to pay. Where the debt is above £20, they have not had, by law, any such discretion, although often, as a result of agreement between the parties, they have been given discretion, and they exercise it in the same way.
The county court is a tribunal used to dealing with this kind of matter and dealing with it very well. You have people there in the witness box, where you can listen to them and look at them and make up your mind what it is reasonable to expect. In the High Court, where a good deal of this legislation is administered, it is quite different, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. You have appearance before the Master, in the "bear garden," where people are standing about. You have overcrowded lists, with all sorts of people waiting in the background wanting to get forward, and there is only an hour or an hour-and-a-half to do the whole job. Very often the Master is not there at all, and the work is done by somebody else. The creditor files an affidavit, in which he says that the defendant's means are so and so, and the defendant, if he has enough money to do so, files a counter-affidavit. It is not in that spirit that this kind of legislation can properly be administered. The county


court is already experienced and accustomed to doing the very kind of job that the courts are called upon to do, under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, and which is certainly not effectively done in the High Court, where, with all respect to them, there are not the right conditions. It is not a tribunal with the same experience of working-class life as the county court.
Working-class people are commonly affected by this legislation and I include in that term those middle-class people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has referred. These are the people mostly affected, and it is more practical and just, and the objective of the legislation is more effectively attained, if you leave to the county courts a much wider jurisdiction than they have at present. I do not know how it would be done. It would obviously need further legislation, but it would be worth while to provide that, applications to exercise the remedy which, under this legislation, cannot be exercised without the leave of the court, should be made to the county court, in every case where the subject-matter of the litigation was below a certain amount. You might fix a substantial amount.

6.9 p.m.

The Attorney-General: By the leave of the House I should like to say a word or two in answer to some of the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) raised a point, also referred to by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), whether this Clause should remain permissive. It is a Clause for the removal of doubts. Most courts have felt that their discretion might be affected by the words in the original Act.
unable immediately to do so by reason of circumstances directly or indirectly attributable.
The words in the Clause make it clear that there was no misconception. Arguments about "may" and "shall" were started a long time ago, and will probably go on till the end of time. Here we are dealing with what obviously must be a discretion, and "may" is probably the right word here.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) cited the case of three landlords. The Clause does not completely cover this

point, but the probabilities of what may happen under rules made under Clause 2 go some way to meet the point. If the court were satisfied that the payments being made to a reasonable landlord were all that the defendant was reasonably able to make in his circumstances, that would be a good ground for preventing the enforcement by an unreasonable landlord of his right to forfeiture, so long as he was getting the same as the other landlord.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask a question on that point? Does my right hon. and learned Friend approve of the principle which I put forward that something should be done to protect the proprietor, who would be excluded? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it certain by putting in "shall"? Do not let us have any question about it. Between now and the Committee stage will he put something into the Bill to make the position quite clear?

The Attorney-General: I hesitate to say that I agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, because I am not quite sure of what he has said. One of the difficulties about this subject-matter is that every case is different, and the result depends upon the exact circumstances. All I was saying was that he took the case of three landlords, two reasonable and one unreasonable. If the resources of the tenant are such that he can say to the court, "What I am giving to the reasonable landlord is all that I can afford, because I am unable, owing to the war, to pay more, and they are willing to accept it," it would, I should think, afford very strong ground for asking the court to see that the unreasonable landlord did not get more than the reasonable landlords. But you could not put that into a Bill, to the extent of saying that it should apply automatically to every case. The landlords might not only be reasonable but be friends of the tenant, and the terms arranged with another landlord might not reflect merely the economic needs of the tenant. You could not put into a Bill, as a matter of law, that because one landlord would accept a certain sum, other landlords should be compelled to accept the same sum.
The next point was with regard to public utilities. This point was raised before, and the difficulty was pointed out of dealing with this matter by law, partly


because many of the contracts are of such short duration. Various Ministers presiding over the Departments concerned have said that they would be very willing to look into cases, where it was thought that public utilities had been using their power unreasonably. All I can say at the moment is that I hope hon. Gentlemen who have cases in mind have put them to the various Departments to see whether there was hardship which could be dealt with administratively.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but this is an important point. The point is that the threat is used by these monopoly organisations to obtain payment in full. By hook or by crook the tenant makes that payment in full, but, of course, that is at the expense of the other people who are owed money, and it is most unfair.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to what he regards as improper threats—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I did not say "improper."

The Attorney-General: Well, "threats" has a rather sinister sound. I hope that he has drawn the attention of the Minister of Transport to cases where this undue pressure or these threats have been made. My right hon. Friend said, or I said it on his behalf, that he was willing to look into cases where he thought this power was being used in circumstances where it ought not to be used. It is unfortunate if those who are interested in this matter have not followed out that avenue, to use a colloquialism.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is any use making representations in this way? Everybody knows—it is a matter of common sense—that if a utility company provide you with water and you get behind with your payment—it is not a question of giving one instance or another, it is general—they say, "If you do not pay, we will cut the water off." There is no point in seeing the Ministry of Transport or any other Department then.

The Attorney-General: That is a very unconvincing observation, particularly in

the light of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just told the House in regard to gas. He said that the gas companies with the same power have treated people extremely reasonably. It is now suggested that the Metropolitan Water Board, the electricity companies and telephone companies, have not taken the reasonable course which the gas companies have taken. I should have thought that there was every reason for taking the matter up with the heads of Departments who have influence, if not statutory powers, to suggest that these other undertakings should adopt the same general and reasonable policy as is adopted by the gas companies.

Mr. Silverman: Why not put it in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: You cannot put it in the Bill that people should act reasonably. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the Ministry in charge of these services invited information on matters of this kind, and it would lighten our task if the invitation was accepted. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) had two suggestions, and we are advising the Committee to consider both courses. My Noble Friend's Department has kept and is keeping this matter under constant review. We receive a great deal of information, and when we have not dealt with some cases it is not because we have not considered them, but because the subject-matter in some cases is very difficult to deal with. We get many more hard cases than suggestions as to how they should be dealt with. An Advisory Committee might, I think, put another cog in the machine. However, I will certainly consider it. If the hon. Member has any practical suggestions, I am sure that my Noble Friend's Department or I myself will be very glad to have them.
The hon. Member also spoke of the increased jurisdiction in county courts, and I will also consider that matter. I am bound to say, however, that there is a certain difficulty in departing from the general principle of the Bill, that the court to grant the leave is the court where you get the judgment. I think it will result in increased jurisdiction, but I will certainly look into that point. I welcome the general attitude of the House to the Bill, and I hope that it will grant the Second Reading.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I wish the Attorney-General would use his persuasive appeal with his colleagues, the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Transport. During the time that this trouble was becoming a little inflamed I remember meeting the then Postmaster-General, who has now been transferred to a higher status. I know he was very anxious to be nice with everybody, but it was always almost impossible for a deputation to see him. I appealed to him personally to meet a deputation about telephones, and he suggested that they might see somebody else who would be at the Post Office when he was not there. I tried two or three ways to get him fixed in some place where these people could meet him by deputation, and it was almost impossible. It may be that the changes that have now taken place in that Department are such that the present Postmaster-General would be more inclined to hear a deputation. All I am asking is that the Attorney-General will ask his colleagues to listen to these appeals. I can assure him from my knowledge and information that it has been very difficult to arrange for a deputation to see the Postmaster-General. It has been no use appealing. We have also had a change in regard to the Minister of Transport. It may be that the new Minister of Transport will not be so afraid to meet deputations and discuss difficulties there.
May I also say that it is a great advance that this forfeiture of the lease shall no longer take place? There are other difficulties which will challenge the strongest spirit. One of those difficulties is that of contracts made after the war started. There are people who thought they had a secure contract and were warranted in believing so from the general policy of the Government. They have entered into contracts with their eyes open, believing everything will be all right, but now, with these parachutists and other things falling from the blue heavens of the night, conditions apparently have been entirely changed. I hope I am not asking too much in requesting that something be done to consider the cases of people who have entered into contracts after the war started, in areas which have been directly affected by some new technique arising out of the prosecution of the war. I am adumbrating that point in view of the Committee stage coming later. I want

to thank the Attorney-General, because I know that he has been preoccupied with this matter, and he deserves some thanks. His late colleague also deserves some measure of thanks, because he, as well as the Attorney-General, put his hands to this rather difficult task and a distinct improvement has been made.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Tuesday next.—[Mr. Grimston.]

Orders of the Day — MIDDLESEX DEEDS BILL. [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.26 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is not here, because I feel that this would be even more in his line than the last Bill which we have just discussed. I can explain very shortly to the House the purpose of this Bill. The Middlesex Deeds Registry dates from 1707. It is a statutory system for protecting or seeking to protect those who dealt in land in Middlesex, by ensuring that if deeds were registered anybody who bought land is presumed to have notice. That general scheme has been superseded in modern times in Middlesex and certain other parts of the country, by the system of land registration. The broad difference is that under the land registration system you can look at a map and see where the bit of land is and then find out what has happened to it, whereas in registered deeds you see simply "Mr. Jones" or "Mr. Robinson" on the deeds. This is a much better and more scientific way of classifying and registering deeds in land. As a result, the Middlesex Deeds Registry was closed for the further registration of deeds in 1936, when land registration was made compulsory in Middlesex, but it has remained open for the purpose of search, because the effect of the registration of the deeds already registered still continues. It costs a considerable sum of money each year to keep it open for the purposes of search and, of course, a considerable amount of work by those who make the searches.


The time has come, we feel, particularly having regard to the war, to close it for all purposes. That will save the cost of keeping it open for search.
Certain provisions of a technical kind have to be made as to the change-over and the position of deeds registered in the past, and we have to contemplate the possibility, though not at all a likely one, of someone, suffering financially, by not having been able to search in the Middlesex Deeds Registry. It is just possible that there are cases in which, owing to not making a search, certain persons might find they were prejudiced. In those circumstances, therefore, provision must be made for anybody who is able to show that he has suffered damage through Parliament in effect bringing to an end the statutory scheme which Parliament itself set up. Therefore, Clause 3 provides for compensation to recover the amount paid.

Mr. Ammon: How would they prove that?

The Attorney-General: They would approach the Treasury Solicitor in the first instance. As a matter of fact, cases of this kind, like cases under the Land Registry Act, are almost always settled by agreement. Should a case not be settled by agreement, we have provided that it can be settled in the High Court. That would be done by an originating summons in the Chancery Division, and we think that it is the best procedure for settling the rights of the persons aggrieved should it not be possible to settle them by agreement.

Mr. Ammon: Might not that put the person concerned to a considerable amount of extra expense, which he might not possess the means to pay?

The Attorney-General: In the first place, I think it unlikely that persons will be adversely affected. If they are, I think that the cases would be of the class in which it is very unlikely that the amount of compensation would not be agreed. In the last resort, if it was not agreed, and if it was shown that the Treasury—or the Treasury Solicitor, on behalf of the Treasury—had been unreasonable, the court would, of course, award costs to the person who had had to apply to the courts. That is the ordinary system. I do not think the

House would wish me to go into technicalities; those are the broad lines.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: The Bill in itself is a relic of the past, and I hope that it will not require to be invoked. The old, historic difficulty of search, and the valuable payments that were made to those who made the searches, and the difficulty of the man who bought land, not knowing whether it was his or not, and never knowing when a claim might be sprung upon him, are, let us hope, things of the past. While this is interesting as a relic, how much easier it would have been if we had had a sane system, so that search would not even have been required, and the man in possession would have been much more secure, and would have been able to sleep in his bed at night without wondering what was coming in the morning in the way of a claim upon the site. If in the past the user of the land had been required to pay a tax on its market value, it would have been quite unnecessary to bring forward this Measure.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): Perhaps the hon. Member will not develop that theme any further.

Mr. MacLaren: I am merely pointing out that the Bill before us now is necessitated only by the fact that in the past we did not deal with these matters in a sane and rational way. I hope that in the future there will be no necessity for further Measures of this sort, seeing that we have now emerged into a new dispensation, under which the land belongs to the State; and after the war there will be very little time devoted to searching to find who owned the land before the war began. It would have been much better if in the past certain principles had been observed and acted upon. There would then have been no doubt as to who was the owner, and no need for any search. The owner or user of the site would have been the man who paid the tax upon the values.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Tuesday next.—[Mr. Grimston.]

MIDDLESEX DEEDS [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session providing for the closing for all purposes of the Middlesex Deeds Register, to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of indemnities to persons suffering loss by reason of the provisions of that Act."—(King' s Recommendation signified).—[Captain Crook-shank.]

Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — WAR CHARITIES BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Registration of war charities.)

6.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after "application," to insert:
and of the time within which, and the place at which, objections to the application may be made.
This Amendment and the next Amendment are to make clear the purpose of the advertisements in the newspapers, which are provided for in Clause 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 36, after "shall," insert "after considering any such objections."—[Mr. Peake.]

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if at the time of the transfer the registration authority from whose area the administrative centre of the war charity is transferred is engaged in an investigation of the affairs of the charity, the authority may postpone the transmission of the particulars of registration of the charity until the completion of the investigation.
The object of this Amendment is to prevent a charity from evading the completion of an investigation by transferring its administrative centre from one area to another.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I should like to raise two points. The first is a small one. Sub-section (2) sets out that:
No charity shall be registered under this Act unless the registration authority are satisfied that a responsible committee or other body … consisting of not less than three persons, has been appointed to administer the charity.
I did not put down an Amendment, because I do not want to delay the Committee; but I would like my hon. Friend to consider whether it is quite safe to fix so low a number as three. I suppose that we all have in mind instances of a charity, administered by a man, his wife and a brother-in-law or sister-in-law, which is really a bogus concern. It is easy to form a committee of three. I do not know what would be an appropriate number—say, five or, perhaps, seven—but I have considerable uneasiness about three. The other point is a more general one. It will be observed that under Sub-section (3)
An appeal from a refusal by a registration authority to register any charity, or from the decision of a registration authority to remove any charity from the register, shall lie to the Charity Commissioners.
That means that if representations are made to an authority that any particular charity has become redundant and ought to be abolished—and, again, I have no doubt that hon. Members have cases in mind where a charity goes on and on, not because the object for which it was formed still exists, but because a group of officers have a vested interest in it, and, therefore, retain the organisation long after the reason and purpose for its existtence have passed—it is left to the Charity Commissioners to say whether such de-registration can take place. Who are the Charity Commissioners, who are going to decide a matter of this kind? They are, in flavour, very legalistic. I am told that when an appeal is brought before them now, it is decided by two lawyers. We all have a great respect for lawyers in their proper place, but charities—that is to say, voluntary social services—are now so inextricably bound up with public social services, and the public social services are so greatly expanding year by


year, and taking over what were once voluntary social services, that I contend that someone other than two legal experts is needed to decide properly whether, in the national interest, any charity ought to continue or not. I can conceive many cases where, from the legal point of view, the decision might properly be taken that a charity might continue, but where, from a national, social point of view, there might be an unanswerable case for saying that that particular charitable effort ought to be embodied in the national social services scheme.
I would suggest that the constitution of the Charity Commissioners ought to be examined. There ought to be somebody among the Charity Commissioners who is there, not because he is a lawyer, but because he has a thorough understanding of the whole business of social services in this country, so that he knows of this inter-connection of which I have spoken and is aware of the trend of Government policy. Such a person would be able to judge of the national interest, apart from the narrow, individual interest of one organisation. I know that my hon. Friend cannot alter the constitution of the Charity Commissioners now; but he has put on the Charity Commissioners a new responsibility, and my contention is that they are not very competent to discharge that responsibility.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend has made these points on the Question of the Clause standing part, but I have not had any opportunity of giving them the consideration which they deserve. With regard to the point that the committee of management should or may consist of more than three persons, I do not know that any particular number of persons is regarded as sacrosanct, but if the object of the Bill is to provide against doubtful or fraudulent charities, you are probably as likely to get five people joined together in such a business as you are three. Whatever number you prescribe, the number of the executive will not have very much effect in guarding against fraud. The provisions of the Bill which are intended to guard against those doubtful practices are the provisions for registration and the wider powers given by this Bill to the Charity Commissioners as compared with the powers which they

exercise under the War Charities Act, 1916. However, his points certainly shall be considered, because this Bill will now have to go back to another place for these Amendments to be considered there. I think that the point with regard to the question of the constitution of the Charity Commissioners goes a fairly long way beyond the scope of this Clause. In considering what body should be a sort of court of appeal and be given powers of administration over charities, we cannot think of anybody better qualified for that purpose than the Charity Commissioners, and that is the reason that we inserted the powers of the Charity Commissioners in the Bill.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would at least have given the assurance that he would see, since this Bill imposes an additional responsibility on the Charity Commissioners, that that body is constituted in such a way as to perform the function which he invites it to perform.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) in his contention. This Bill ought to be passed at the earliest possible moment. It is not a new function on the part of the Charity Commissioners to do this sort of thing. It will be found that when a charity ceases to function any like society can take over the funds. I made use of this right 20 years ago in order to take over the funds of a society which had become defunct because the personal directors, who were very old men, died. The money that I was able to secure was transferred to a like society of which I happened to be, by good fortune, the honorary secretary. That fund is now considerable because the court of appeal was the Charity Commissioners. The Charity Commissioners are not unused to this sort of thing, and I cannot imagine any better body to do the very thing that this Bill suggests. As it is necessary that this Bill should be brought into effect at the earliest possible moment, I suggest that the contention of my hon. Friend, for whose opinion I have the greatest respect, should not be heeded.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I wish to support the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson


Stewart) with regard to the number of persons comprising the committee of management, but apparently the Under-Secretary does not attach much importance to it. A committee can be set up consisting of a president, secretary and treasurer, and they can all belong to the same family. This question really needs further consideration. I would be prepared to make the number, five. The Under-Secretary said that in a certain way numbers do not matter, but if there are only three members of a committee, you are more liable to have a clique than you would if there were seven members. If the Minister could see his way to recommend that there should be not less than seven persons, there would be less likelihood of fraud than there will be if there are only three members. I suggest that he should give this matter serious consideration.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Conditions to be complied with by registered charities.)

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, at the end, to insert "and other records."
This Amendment is designed to make the power of inspection conferred on the registration authority, the Charity Commissioners, comprehensive, and in particular to cover the minutes of the meetings of the management committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Registration authorities.)

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 9, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(b) as respects any county borough, or any non-county borough or urban district which has according to the last published census for the time being a population of fifteen thousand or upwards, be the council of the borough or urban district.
This Amendment is the result of some discussions which have taken place since the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill as originally introduced provided that the registration authorities throughout the

country should be the county councils and the county borough councils. That is to say, there would have been 147 registration authorities, apart from the City of London and the council of the Scilly Islands. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville) and several other Members that the Act of 1916 provided that the registration authorities should be not only those authorities but councils of boroughs and of urban districts. Discussions have taken place with a view to seeing how far we can extend the number of registration authorities and still preserve good administration. Let it be observed that the powers of registration conferred by this Bill will give a charity power to conduct a charitable appeal not only within the boundaries of the registration authority itself, but outside those boundaries and throughout the country. It is therefore very desirable that registration authorities should act more or less consistently in granting or refusing registration. We have examined the question, and as a result we have put down an Amendment on the Paper which extends the number of registration authorities by adding the councils of non-county boroughs and urban districts provided that they have more than 15,000 inhabitants. If we had gone beyond that, we should have added, I think, unreasonably to the number of registration authorities. The Amendment that we propose will make the number of registration authorities 399 in place of 147, and I hope that the Committee will accept this as a reasonable compromise, because I am afraid we cannot go further and add to the number of different registration authorities.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I want to utter only one or two sentences on this Amendment. I happen to have been, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in these negotiations which produced a compromise between 20,000 and 10,000. He will know that the urban district councils and the non-county boroughs possess a local patriotism, and we are very anxious that they should be allowed to express their patriotism. One of the forms in which they can do that best is that they shall administer Acts of Parliament which are appropriate to their case,


and this is one of them. It is very strange that the hon. Gentleman is unwilling to reduce the figure down to 10,000, because I am told that the Ministry of Supply is to issue an order soon in connection with salvage operations, and when the strong hand of that Ministry comes down it will fall on every urban council with above 10,000 inhabitants. It seems incongruous therefore that one Government Department should stipulate 10,000 and another Government Department 15,000. But then, you can hardly expect anything else from a Coalition Government, I am afraid. It is the essence of Coalition that one Government Department is not sure what the other is doing.
Let me add another word on the subject. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville) is much more capable of explaining this position than I am, but I will do my best. I am told that the Advertisement Regulation Act, 1907, gives certain powers to urban district councils and non-county boroughs with over 10,000 population, and it is once again anomalous that these several Acts of Parliament should stipulate several population bases for implementing their provisions. Although it is late in the day and the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary has been good enough to compromise between 10,000 and 20,000, I am just wondering whether if the local authorities had asked him for 5,000 we could not have induced him to give 10,000. That is an old game that is played in respect of wages in the trade unions, as the hon. Gentleman opposite knows too well. I am afraid, however, that the hon. Gentleman is immovable, and I am wondering whether any eloquence of mine could move him at this stage to say that he will be willing to consider this problem once again and to put forward the suggestion I am making in another place.
Finally, he knows as well as I know that some local authorities are very proud of their administration. Some small authorities are much more efficient than larger authorities. In fact, I am sure they are, because I have the honour to represent five small authorities. In any figure which is put forward I know there will be borderline cases, but I am making an appeal on behalf of the Urban District Council's Association to put the figure at 10,000. It would add to the number

of authorities with which he has to deal by only 97 urban district councils and about 30 borough councils, which would mean just another sheet of paper in the Home Office. I feel sure that when the hon. Member for Windsor has followed me, and pushed the door a little more open than I have done, we shall carry the day.

7.1 p.m.

Sir Annesley Somerville: I rise simply to thank my hon. Friend for the generous way in which he has treated the Amendment which was put down by a number of my hon. Friends and myself on behalf of the smaller councils. Of course, we should have been very pleased if he could do as the hon. Member opposite has just suggested, namely, reduce the figure to 10,000, but seeing that the original limit was fixed at 20,000 and we have had 5,000 taken off, I feel that in all the circumstances the Minister has been generous. The Amendment is similar to the one which was inserted in the War Charities Act, 1916, but, as the Minister pointed out, the scope of this Amendment is much wider. I thank my hon. Friend for his encouragement to local patriotism, which I assure him will be greatly appreciated by the small councils.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I would like to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this question of numbers. It is perfectly true that there has been a compromise and that the Minister has very graciously brought the figure down from the figure of 20,000, but I would ask him to consider between now and the next stage of the Bill the representations made by the small authorities. We in this country at the present moment are very anxious that democracy should work, and in my view, and in that of most hon. Members, one reason why democracy has taken such a deep and lasting root in this country is because we have for many hundreds of years functioned democratically through local authorities, some of them extremely tiny. Early in the Debate the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits opposite mentioned that there is a good deal of opening for fraud in regard to war charities, and I think one way of guarding against that is to have a registration authority which is fairly small. In such local authorities' districts people get to know each other well, and consequently


there would be less opening for fraud. I would remind the Minister that the Association of Urban District Councils do not accept the figure he has put into this Amendment. They are very anxious to reduce it to 10,000, especially as another Government Department has taken this figure as reasonable for another purpose. In war time, when it is likely that there may be some upset due to war conditions and communications may be more difficult, I ask him to reconsider this matter and meet the small authorities. If he would, it would bring just over 100 at the most into the Bill and give the small authorities equal rights with the larger authorities.

7.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I would like to follow what the hon. Member has just said and say that the 97 urban districts we have cut out will be very dissatisfied. If it was necessary in the last war to have a figure of 10,000 in connection with the War Charities Bill of that time, why make a change now? In this war communications are much more likely to be cut, and we do not want to centralise too much. Surely the Home Office should welcome this chance of decentralisation as a sound argument for modern times. Local authorities have very much improved since the last war; their administration and power in the running of their own affairs are at a much higher standard. I do not think any hon. Member will say that small authorities are not so efficient as they were 20 years ago. This is, I claim, an argument for giving local authorities with 10,000 inhabitants and over power to administer this Bill.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I see there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville), myself and other hon. Members, but apparently the hon. Member for Windsor is like some of the nations which have been to war. He has left us. He has said that the compromise suits him and has stroked the Minister down the back and said he is a jolly good fellow. But this Amendment which is under his name states at the top:
(b) as respects a municipal borough or urban district, be the council of the borough or district.
That does not stipulate any population. There are some urban councils with a population of less than 10,000. I know

there has been some reconstruction recently, but there are still some with populations of 5,000, 7,000, 8,000 and 9,000, and that is why we are asking the Minister to bring the figure down to 10,000. I think that is a fair compromise.
As between 20,000 and 1,000, 10,000 is the limit. I have had the same correspondence as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and he has made the speech which I was going to make. I want to emphasise the point, that if you put the population at 10,000 it will only mean an additional 97 urban district councils. I am speaking for the Executive Committee of Great Britain and also as a member of an emergency committee of five, representing the urban district councils covering the whole country, who feel that the Minister ought to give serious consideration to the proposal of 10,000. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister referred to paragraph 45 and said something about small authorities which had not done the work properly or as well as they could and should have done. But in paragraph 43 there is the statement that there are some county councils who do not do the business at all.

Mr. Peake: Only one.

Mr. Griffiths: As a member of the Executive, I want to say, having gone thoroughly into the work of urban district councils, that an authority with 10,000 population is doing its work with credit. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Windsor, now that he has his desire, says in effect "You can surround my territory with an iron fence; I give in to you." I think he should help these smaller authorities.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I want to say a word on behalf of small authorities. I am glad that the Amendment has been brought forward by the Minister. It is not a question of 15,000 or 20,000 authorities; there are authorities with 10,000 population which are left out of the Bill to the tender mercies of the county council. I want to put in a word for small authorities which can and should do this work in preference to the larger county authorities. It is true that the report of the Royal Commission suggested that there are authorities which do not carry out certain of their duties. With


regard to war charities, there are authorities which have not carried out their duties, and I am wondering whether if the same Commission were to make a survey of the whole of this country they would find that the larger authorities were carrying out their duties anything like so efficiently as the smaller authorities. From my experience I say that registration would be better done if it were left to those units which are recognised as local government units, without mentioning numbers at all. The 10,000 unit is now suggested in order to bring in more of these local authorities.
I am a member of a local authority with 7,000 population, and that urban district council is as capable of carrying out its work as any authority in the country. If it were left to that particular authority to make representations or inquiries under the Bill, the work would be done much better than if it is left to the Lancashire County Council, of which also I am a member. I speak from a long experience of both a county and a local authority, and I say that the smaller authority can carry out this work just as efficiently as the larger. The Minister has put in 15,000 as a compromise. It was suggested that only authorities with 20,000 and upwards should be given this power. Then a proposal was made that the figure should be a little lower. I think we should get back to the Act of 1916 and leave it to the local autonomous authorities. If not, then I think that an authority with 10,000 should be a registration authority.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I confess that from the tone of the speeches to which I have listened I have been a little discouraged in the endeavour I have made to meet the views of hon. Members on this question. We started with the position that for the sake of good administration under the Bill we should have only 147 registration authorities. Hon. Members took exception to that on the Second Reading, and in due course I met them and representatives of local authorities and put before them a proposal that we should bring in other authorities if they had a population of upwards of 20,000. I hoped that that proposal would have satisfied them. In point of fact, all recent precedents as to limits are in favour of a figure of 20,000.

They asked that the figure should be reduced to 10,000. I have examined the question as to the number of authorities which would result from taking this different population limit. I am sorry to say that in moving the Amendment I understated the number of authorities we should have as a result of taking the 15,000 line. I said it would be 399. That is the number of authorities we should have if we kept the figure of 20,000. By bringing it down to 15,000 we add another 85 authorities, making the total of 484; and if we were to come down to the 10,000 limit, we should add a further 130 authorities. Quite frankly, I can see no limit to the slippery slope upon which I shall find myself if I now accept the figure of 10,000. I cannot see any reason in logic why we should not then proceed to the position as it stood under the Act of 1916, which was that all urban district and borough councils were the registration authorities, and I think it would be very difficult to resist an argument for the inclusion of rural district councils under similar circumstances.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that there was a precedent for this figure of 10,000 under the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907, but there have, in fact, been some half-dozen Acts of Parliament passed since that time which have all provided for a population limit of 20,000 in this sort of circumstances. All the recent Acts are in favour of the higher figure, and I am, in fact, taking a retrograde step in suggesting 15,000 in the present Measure. The precedents for the population limit of 10,000 are nearly all old Acts, and some of their titles do not encourage me to think that the precedent is one which ought now to be pursued. Two out of the three examples of the 10,000 population limit which I have before me are the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and the Destruction of Insects and Pests Act, 1888. I hope hon. Members will accept the proposal which I have put forward and which, I think, goes a very long way towards a reasonable compromise on this difficult question.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point which I raised concerning decentralisation? I am sure he realises that county councils do not want any additional work at the present time, since they are fully employed.

Mr. Peake: My hon. and gallant Friend has apparently overlooked that Section of the Local Government Act which gives power to all county councils to devolve any administration of this kind upon the smaller authorities if they so desire.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 3, leave out "or the county borough."—[Mr. Peake.]

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Common Council of the city of London may act through a committee of the council, which may, if the council think fit, comprise persons who are not members of the council.
This Amendment re-enacts for the city of London a provision made in Section 2 of the War Charities Act, 1916, which is no longer necessary elsewhere in view of the provisions made in the Local Government Act, 1933.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Definition of war charity.)

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 11, line 15, after "they," to insert:
provide for the extension of the objects of certain war charities and.
The reason for this Amendment is that charities administered by Government Departments are, by Sub-section (3) of Clause 11, exempted from the provisions of the Bill except in regard to certain particulars. The Amendment which I am moving makes it necessary for such charities to comply with the provisions of Clause 6 if they wish to extend the objects of the charity.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland.)

7.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move, in page 12, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(h) any expenditure incurred by a county or town council for the purposes of this Act shall be defrayed out of such rate payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions as the council may determine.

The purpose of this Amendment is to give direction to local authorities in Scotland as to the method of raising any expenditure under the Bill which is to be met from rates. Such expenditure is likely to be of a negligible amount in view of the fact that Clause 4, Subsection (1) of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State by regulation to prescribe fees not exceeding 10s. to be paid on the registration of a charity, and fees for making or obtaining copies of and extracts from registers and lists. The provision in the Bill will, however, provide for the contingency of rateborne expenditure. Even though it may be infinitesimal, there may still be a rate charge, and as the rating system in England is different from that in Scotland, provision is made in the Amendment which will make it clear that in the case of burghs in Scotland, where certain rates are chargeable only on occupiers, the rateborne expenditure under this Bill is to be divided equally between owners and occupiers.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Westwood: I take this opportunity very briefly to explain the operation of the Bill as far as Scotland is concerned, because this Clause deals with the application of the Bill to Scotland. There is no body in Scotland corresponding to the Charity Commissioners in England, who have very important functions under this Bill, and it is proposed in this Clause that in Scotland the corresponding functions shall be discharged by the Secretary of State. These functions are, briefly, to decide appeals from the decision of registration authorities; to keep a combined register of all charities registered under the Act and a combined list of charities in respect of which applications for registration have been refused and which have been exempted from registration; to make regulations for various purposes necessary under the Act; to direct the removal of a charity from its register or the withdrawal or exemption from registration from an authority; to exercise winding-up powers in respect of charities which have been removed from the register, charities which have had an application for registration refused or which would be likely to have


an application refused, and charities the objects of which have failed or become obsolete.
In connection with the winding-up powers to which I have just referred, the Bill extends to war charities powers which the Charity Commissioners already possess in relation to charities within their jurisdiction under the Charitable Trust Acts, 1853–1939. As the Secretary of State cannot operate under these powers, it has been necessary to provide in the Bill corresponding powers for winding-up purposes in Scotland. Under the House to House Collections Act, 1939, all county and town councils in Scotland are registration authorities, and that is provided for as far as this Clause is concerned. In applying the War Charities Bill to Scotland it is proposed that the registration authorities shall be the same as under the House to House Collections Act in its application to Scotland. This is not a new thing. We are simply following the precedent under previous Acts in applying these powers to the local authorities that are referred to in the Clause now before the Committee. I may point out that this arrangement accords with the view of the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, who were consulted on this particular matter, and that the county councils lodged no complaint. It is necessary in connection with this variation in regard to registration authorities in the two countries to modify in its application to Scotland a provision in the Bill for slightly amending the grounds for refusal of licences and exemptions from registration under the House to House Collections Act, 1939.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: May I thank the Minister for having given us an opportunity of seeing once again how Scotland leads the way? The reason I put my question was to find out whether there are any limitations or any qualifications in numbers, and I am glad to find that there are not. I am glad the Secretary of State is taking over these duties, and I wish that the Under-Secretary would take note of this, not only in this direction but in many others. Scotland shows us the way in England, and I wish instead of Charity Commissioners we had the same powers mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Short title, extent and repeal.)

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 13, line 8, after "Act," to insert:
except the provisions of the Section (Provision as to Northern Ireland)
This Amendment is really consequential upon the new Clause which stands in my name. They are both required for the reason that matters arising from a state of war are a reserved subject under the Government of Ireland Act, and, therefore, we must make it clear that the Government of Northern Ireland have power to legislate in this matter if they so desire.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Northern Ireland.)

Notwithstanding anything in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall have power to make laws, in respect of war charities established in the portion of Ireland within their jurisdiction or any part thereof, for purposes similar to the purposes of this Act.—[Mr. Peake.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time; and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — INDIAN AND COLONIAL DIVORCE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

7.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Earlier this afternoon I dealt with a somewhat technical and complicated Measure affecting India, and I hope the House will be equally kind while I endeavour to explain the general purposes of an even more technical and complicated subject. At any rate, I am somewhat encouraged in the hope that this Bill may have a Second Reading without difficulty by the fact that it has


already passed the many legal luminaries who cluster in another place, and even more so by the absence of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. P. Herbert), who knows more about this subject than any man ought to know and could, were he here, floor me, no doubt, with many conundrums which I could not possibly answer. In dealing with this question of the divorce law as it affects European British subjects resident in India, but intending ultimately to return to this country, and therefore not domiciled in India, it is necessary for me to go back a little into the past legal history on the matter.
In 1921, by one of those interesting legal decisions which from time to time throw perturbation and alarm into our private and public life, the High Court decided that all divorces which had been granted under the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 to such persons were invalid, or at any rate invalid outside India. Parliament accordingly passed a short validating Act rectifying that anomaly. It was, however, felt that the matter could not rest there and that undue hardship would be involved if parties resident in India were not able to secure a divorce except in the courts here. Accordingly in 1926 Parliament passed the India and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, which, while still leaving access to the courts in England and Scotland, gave access to certain judges in certain limited High Courts in India with a view to securing decrees for divorce and also such incidental decrees affecting alimony, damage, custody of children and so forth. It was the plain intention of the Act of 1926, and was actually said in so many words in the Act, that the grounds for divorce in India in future for the class of applicants concerned should be the same as those for the time being in England. Unfortunately, certain provisions in the Act of 1926 were of such a character as to cover only the provisions of the law as it stood at that date. This has raised doubt as to whether in fact the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1937 apply in India under the Act of 1926. Clearly there is no subject on which doubt or uncertainty could be more unfortunate than on any question affecting the validity of marriage. The purpose of this Bill is to dispose of any of those doubts and to make the law the same for the parties concerned, whether

they apply in Indian courts or to a court in this country.
Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 disposes of doubts as to the past. It validates decrees passed in the belief that the Act of 1926 did give the power to confer divorces on the same ground as our Act of 1937. Sub-sections (1) and (3) apply to India all the applicable provisions of the Act of 1937. I ought to explain that this Measure does not deal with the matters in the Act of 1937 affecting judicial separation, nullity, or courts of summary jurisdiction, because these matters were not affected by the decision of 1921 and can still be dealt with under the powers of the original Indian Divorce Act of 1869. Nor do they apply to the provision in the Act of 1937 dealing with the relief of clergy, because that applies to conditions as regards parishioners' rights in this country which are not paralleled in India. Clause 2 gets rid of words in the Act of 1926 which were held to cast doubt upon the effect of the Act of 1926 in dealing with future legislation in this country, but retains certain limitations as to the parties who can have access to the courts in India.
There are two other minor respects in which this Bill goes beyond the task of making sure that the Act of 1937 is applicable to divorces granted in India. Under Clause 4 there is an alteration with regard to the provision for registration of divorces. Under the Act of 1926 registration was left to the petitioner. That was found to have certain unforeseen defects. In one particular case a lady, having secured a divorce, omitted, whether by oversight or by foresight, to register it before marrying again and, subsequently finding her second husband not as satisfactory as she had hoped, successfully brought an action for nullity of marriage and was free to start on her adventurous career again. This Clause ensures that the registration is done through the courts and prevents a recurrence of that difficulty. Clause 6 overcomes a possible ambiguity in the Act of 1926 under which it might have been assumed that suiters in India could apply to any of the High Courts in India and not to the one in whose jurisdiction they reside. This Clause makes that clear. Clauses 5 and 7 are purely formal. The somewhat late date in Clause 7 is to afford plenty of time for the provisions of


the Bill to reach India and to be available before the courts take cognisance of it.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.—[Mr. Boulton.]

Orders of the Day — DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ACT, 1934.

7.43 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move,
That the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment Order, 1940, dated 15th June, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 19th June, be approved.
Up till now the clearing office arrangements with Rumania have been governed by the Anglo-Rumanian Trade Agreement of 12th July, 1939. That has not proved entirely suitable under conditions of war, and an agreement has therefore been made to terminate that agreement as from 17th June. The effect of this Order is to wind up the Anglo-Rumanian Clearing Office. Under its provisions it will be self-liquidated as all the debts incurred during its currency are collected. There is provision for that in the agreement. The

result is that trade will be along the normal lines, and it should enable, if we were living in normal times, trade to pass satisfactorily between this country and Rumania. We hope that, in spite of the abnormality of the times, trade will continue as far as is possible in the circumstances of to-day.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1938.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

"1. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1939, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £838,468 15s. 5d., namely:—




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
3,588,962
14
7


Total Deficits
…
2,750,493
19
2


Net Surplus
…
£838,468
15
5

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Army Services, 1938, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Army
—
—


243,435
4
7
15,352
8
2


2
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.
108,402
17
6
220
13
—


—


3
Medical Services
—
1,532
11
10
17,726
8
4
—


4
Educational Establishments.
—
—


24,363
6
6
3,834
15
2


5
Quartering and Movements
262,339
3
10
—


—


7,777
11
2


6
Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.
—
—


227,590
3
3
15,299
1
1


7
Clothing
4,746
12
10
—


—


21,537
11
11


8
General Stores
47,774
19
3
—


—


29,634
14
7


9
Warlike Stores
—
1,498,401
17
8
1,609,210
13
7
—


10
Works, Buildings, and Lands.
—
774,915
19
8
1,354,914
3
1
—


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
24,241
9
1
4,539
14
2
—


—


12
War Office
—
1,870
18
2
14,976
4
0
—


13
Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.
3,445
16
11
835
2
10
—
—


14
Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Noncommissioned Officers,
Men, and others.
150
15
9
—


—


3,310
9
2


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.
13,686
13
4
159
15
8
—


—


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
3,229
9
5
—


—


—




468,017
17
11
2,282,476
1
3
3,492,216
3
4
96,746
11
3




Total Deficits £2,750,493 19 2
Total Surpluses £3,588,962 14 7




Net Surplus
…
£838,468 15 5"

Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain
Crookshank.]
II. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day
of March, 1939, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate
sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net
surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £72,181 10s.
1d., namely:—





£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
1,005,621
15
7


Total Deficits
…
933,440
5
6


Net Surplus
…
£72,181
10
1


And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised
the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is
necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Army Services, 1938, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force.
—
—
22,945
10
2
8,422
11
9


2
Quartering, Non-technical Stores, Supplies and Transportation.
—
—
25,827
15
1
10,543
5
5


3
Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services).
647,134
15
2
113,471
19
0
—
—


4
Works, Buildings, and Lands.
112,984
12
3
—
—
14,688
11
5


5
Medical Services
—
—
28,701
10
0
528
17
5


6
Technical Training and Educational Services.
—
870
1
2
75,549
17
1
—


7
Reserve and Auxiliary Forces.
—
305
16
5
291,764
14
8
—


8
Civil Aviation
—
—
307,982
12
7
15,337
12
5


9
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
180,355
1
0
2,632
13
11


10
Air Ministry
51,489
0
7
—
—
3,511
10
4


11
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.
—
—
16,248
10
7
581
1
9


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
7,184
0
11
—
—
—




818,792
8
11
114,647
16
7
949,375
11
2
56,246
4
5




Total Deficits £933,440 5 6
Total Surpluses £1,005,621 15 7




Net Surplus
…
£72,181 10 1"

Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Resolutions to be reported upon Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 to 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of Bolton, a copy of which was presented to this House on 6th June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the City of Durham Gas Company, a copy of which was

presented to this House on 6th June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Cheadle and Churnet Valley Gas Company, Limited, a copy of which was presented to this House on 28th May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Leamington Priors Gas Company and the Warwick Gas Company, a copy of which was presented to this House on 4th June and published, be approved."—[Major Lloyd George.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments


Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the urban district of Baldock, a copy of which was presented to this House on 25th June, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Taunton, a copy of which was presented to this House on 25th June, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Colchester, a copy of which was presented to this House on 25th June, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the county borough of Walsall, a copy of which was presented to this House on 25th June, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — TROOPS' ACCOMMODATION (RAILWAY TERMINI, LONDON).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Robertson: Yesterday I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War the following Question:
Whether he is satisfied with the welfare arrangements for soldiers in Euston, King's Cross, St. Pancras and Liverpool Street stations?
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office replied:
Adequate provision of rest rooms, washing and lavatory facilities and food canteens at King's Cross station will be available almost immediately. At Euston, St. Pancras and Liverpool Street stations progress is necessarily slow owing to the congestd nature of the stations, but accommodation is available in the neighbourhood and efforts are being made to improve accommodation in the stations themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1940; col. 285, Vol. 362.]
After 10 months of war I regret that I am unable to accept that answer as satisfactory. In addition to the interest which all hon. Members take in the welfare of our troops I have a special interest, because I have the honour to represent the Association of Scottish Societies, 92 in number, who requested me to look

into the conditions at the northern stations particularly. To my very great regret I found that there is a total lack of rest accommodation for the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen who pass through those great stations by day and by night, and that catering facilities are either absent or hopelessly inadequate. I found that if a soldier wishes to wash himself, he has to pay 3d.—if he can get a basin to wash himself in—and that if he wishes to shave himself while washing he is taxed another 4d. for that. If he wishes to use the W.C. he pays a penny. I take the view that the emoluments of a fighting man are inadequate to meet those imposts, which may be quite satisfactory for the civilian population.
I tried to get this matter adjusted without raising it on the Floor of the House. I did not rush in to put down a Question. I spent a month with the Ministers concerned attempting to get things put right, and I am sorry to say that I am still just about where I was when I started. I want to make it clear that this matter affects every hon. Member. Every constituency is represented at those great stations every day. It has been a distressing thing to me to see men lying on trolleys by night, and to hear from Metropolitan policemen, military policemen, railway transport officers and voluntary workers connected with the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army and the Church Army of the conditions that prevail, in those stations—for instance of 70 men lying on the linoleum on the floor of the waiting-room at King's Cross. Men arrive at 2 o'clock or thereabouts in the morning, and because there is no accommodation available for them they have to try to sleep under those miserable conditions until such time as the morning trains to their destinations start running.
My attention was directed to this matter by officials at the stations who learned that I was interested in the welfare of the troops and hoped that I could do something. To particularise. Take Euston Station. There is no rest-room accommodation at all for the troops. There is a small canteen operated by the Y.M.C.A. at the extremity of the station. Frequently the entrance to it is cluttered up with mail bags, and in the darkness it must be exceedingly difficult for any soldier or sailor to find it, and I am


amazed that they do find it. At King's Cross conditions are similar. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, when I, spoke to him about the matter, was good enough to take steps to try to meet the needs of the case. He did not get the room which was required but he did get another one, and I, through the associations with which I am connected, found a considerable part of the money to have it fitted with shower-baths, washhand basins, wire beds in tiers where men could rest by day or night and easy chairs in which those who had only an hour or two to wait could sit.
In this connection I wish to make it clear that a trooper is in quite a different position from a civilian. We are masters of our own destiny. We can catch trains to suit our convenience. We can go to the station 15 or 20 minutes before time, or one minute before, and catch the train. We do not need the same facilities as soldiers and sailors, but the railway companies do acknowledge that facilities are required, and provide for the civilians waiting-room accommodation and some catering accommodation. My hon. Friend got a room for us, and I met the Salvation Army authorities and the builders, and we hoped to get to work immediately; but we found we were tenants for a day. The building belonged to the Post Office, or was built for the Post Office, and even though we had spent £500 on it, as we contemplated, it might still have been taken away from us. I submit that my hon. Friend was fobbed off by the railway companies. They gave him not the permanent accommodation which they could have given, but something which they probably knew the Post Office would demand within a day or two.
At St. Pancras Station there is no accommodation at all on the station. Here, again, troops sleep on the floor of a small waiting-room. There is a little hut outside the station, but all that the soldier arriving is confronted with as he marches out of the station are announcements, in letters two feet high, "Café Bar." To his left front and to his right front he sees them, but there is nothing to tell him that there is a little Salvation Army hut where he can get food at cost price and within the limits of his meagre resources. The result is that the soldiers go into the more expensive places, whose prices they can

ill afford. I found also on further investigation that the welfare organisations—the Y.M.C.A. at Euston and at Liverpool Street, the Salvation Army at King's Cross and St. Pancras, and the Church Army at Paddington—had for months been trying to put their case before the railway companies and the Welfare Department of the War Office, but without success. They have been thwarted, frustrated, obstructed, and nothing has happened. To show that I am not exaggerating, which is the last thing I wish to do, I should like to read this letter from the Metropolitan Secretary of the National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations. It is dated 10th June and refers to Liverpool Street Station:
The use of this station by troops during the night has steadily increased over the last few months, and our canteen, which is open day and night, has often been filled with men who have to wait from four to six hours for a train. Some weeks ago the position reached a climax when our workers counted 40 men sleeping on the platforms and trolleys, in addition to those who packed the floor of our canteen. We applied for the use of a room and were given one of the empty offices. We placed mattresses and blankets therein for 25 men and employed a man to look after the place. To our great surprise we received an official communication from the railway company stating that they proposed to charge us £65 per annum for the use of this room. We have not, of course, agreed to this.
I have inspected that room. It is a kind of "Black Hole of Calcutta." There is room for about 15 men to sleep on the floor, on palliasses. The atmosphere is appalling. There is no proper ventilation; in fact, the ventilation is so bad that the paid caretaker has had to give up the job. Many soldiers have felt so suffocated in that room that they have gone out on to the platforms in the hot weather and walked about rather than lie in the room. I submit that by such arrangements we are paying only lip-service to the problem and not dealing with it as it should be dealt with. Here is another letter from a police constable, whose name I will not give, referring to King's Cross:
Catering arrangements appear to be very satisfactory, but many more beds such as those already available are very urgently needed. For the past two weeks about 250 troops have been on the station every night between midnight and 5.30 a.m. This means that a large number of troops still hang about the platforms for several hours and sleep in the waiting rooms. One can imagine the appalling conditions that would be prevailing but for your timely intervention.


That is at King's Cross, where there are very primitive and temporary arrangements pending the spending of £500 upon more adequate accommodation. I find that there is a welfare department at the War Office, presided over by a director who was recently a Member of this House, but has been ennobled. Here is a pamphlet published by him. It is headed: "A Problem of the New Army." What I have told you, Mr. Speaker, is not a problem but a necessity. The pamphlet begins, "New welfare scheme," and goes on with another chapter about the menace of boredom. I am speaking about the boredom of the man who cannot get a wash. The pamphlet goes on to describe "What welfare means in practice." At the end, there is an advisory council of 100 names. That council has been called together once, I believe, to hear a report from the director of what the voluntary organisations had done. The voluntary organisations—that is the Salvation Army, the Church Army, and the Y.M.C.A.—were called together to be told what they had done. My belief is that the welfare has been talked about and not done, and I have no other belief.
Now for the railway companies. They have some responsibility. These soldiers, sailors and airmen have all been paid for by the State, and I feel that the railway companies cannot shuffle off their responsibilities in this matter, as they have undoubtedly done at King's Cross, to places outside the station and not within the station precincts, at Euston to places where one would not have looked, and at St. Pancras, providing no place at all. Every effort is made to force the troops into the catering establishments of the companies or of their licensees. I am sorry to say it, but I have the feeling very deep in my mind, and it is shared by railway transport officers and other voluntary officers whom I have met, that the railway companies have deliberately frustrated this welfare movement because of the loss of revenue to themselves in selling things and the loss of revenue to their tenants in selling cigarettes, tobacco and chocolate.
The railway companies have told the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army and the Church Army that they should buy their tobacco, chocolates and cigarettes from the retail establishments in those stations. The voluntary bodies are trying to sell

the troops something at cost price, but are compelled to buy from the retail organisations at the full retail price less 5 per cent. That shows, I believe, very clearly, that these welfare organisations are trying to do a job without any profit at all. They are trying only to do good, and it is distressing that this atmosphere of deliberate frustration—and of deliberate interest, if you like—is stopping the movement.
I am reluctant to say these things to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on"]—but I would be still more reluctant to think that thousands of the most honoured passengers that the railway companies ever carried were subject to this treatment each day and each night. I know that it is not the wish of this House or of the people outside that hours of misery and discomfort should be brought upon these gallant soldiers, and I do charge the Director of Welfare, and those responsible for his work, with neglect. I hope that he stands the court-martial that soldiers who neglect their duty should stand in war-time, and he should pay the penalty. I charge the directors of the railway companies and their managers with neglect and with a great want of sympathy, and I hope that this House will send out a message to-night that will bring this state of affairs to an end.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I do not know who is to reply on behalf of the Government, but I feel that it is to the Minister of Transport that we are entitled to look for some speedy redress of the conditions existing at the present time. The railway companies are operating under the direction of the Railway Executive Committee, which is under my right hon. Friend. We must bear in mind that these companies have prided themselves, and have spent large sums of money during these months of war upon boasting and placarding in order to say, how they are serving the people. We have heard to-day how the railway companies are serving the soldiers. We remember that, in the months just before the war, these railway companies came squealing for a "square deal." Is there to be a square deal for the railway companies and their shareholders, but a dirty and raw deal for the serving man?
The statement made by my hon. Friend is one which I am sure the House will welcome. We are entitled to insist, through either my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office or the Minister of Transport, that the companies shall be made to realise that they are public servants and that they have great privileges. During this time of war they have been guaranteed a return on their capital. They have had the advantage of protection which very few other organisations have, and it is their duty to put their house in order. I am bound to say that control of the railway companies is one of the matters that my right hon. Friend should take in hand at once. I see that two of these stations are Euston and St. Pancras, the property of the London Midland and Scottish Railway, the president of which line is Lord Stamp. He is able, in addition to fulfilling his duties in that capacity, to act as part-time Economic Adviser to the Government; I feel that it would be more desirable if, before he took on additional duties, he made quite sure that the ordinary soldier who travels on his line was treated with the same consideration as the fare-paying passenger.
In regard to animals, the railway companies are under a statutory obligation to observe certain conditions, and are liable for prosecution if they do not do so. Why is not the same consideration extended to the serving men? The statement of my hon. Friend about the way in which the companies seek, in a time of national emergency, to extract from voluntary organisations very heavy rents in London, when property is very difficult to let, and especially from voluntary organisations which administer comfort and help to the fighting men, is a revelation to this House and a disgrace to the country. I hope that before the House adjourns to-night we shall receive definite assurances that these things will be put right within the next 48 hours.

8.9 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nail: My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) has rendered a real public service to-night. Many of us know that he has been struggling for weeks past with various Departments and people concerned to get this matter redressed. I heard reactions of it and

really believed that something was being done. The House will appreciate from what my hon. Friend has said, that nothing serious in the way of a determined effort has been made. Responsibility for this state of affairs rests in several different quarters. First of all, the War Office, with a great flourish of trumpets, set up this welfare organisation to which attention has been drawn. A one-time Member of this House, now gone to another place, preened himself on what was being done, but that Department is entirely futile. It has never done anything about this matter. I am not blaming the present Financial Secretary to the War Office—he has only just taken over his duties—but I would challenge his Department to say that any officer or person on the welfare staff at the War Office, has ever been to any of these stations to see what is going on. I do not believe that any of them know anything about it or have taken the slightest trouble to make any inquiry about it.
This applies not only in London but all over the country. It is the same in Manchester, and I have no doubt it is the same elsewhere. There is complete lack of interest, and of co-ordination between the local authorities, the Ministry of Transport and the railway companies concerned. When voluntary organisations are willing to come along and do something to fill the gap, it is scandalous to demand rent and obstruct their efforts in this way. It should not be necessary for voluntary organisations to have to fill the gap in this way. Four main line railway companies have refreshment departments. They can do something. They cannot provide bivouacs for everybody who wants to stay the night in the station, but the refreshment departments of the railways seem to take no interest whatever in these exceptional tasks which are thrust upon them.
One must be fair to the railway companies. They do cater for the carrying of these men quite reasonably. In certain cases special trains are run. Night trains are available, but the military authorities in sending men on leave seem to take no notice whatever of train connections. The men are not given proper instructions about train connections. They are thrown into Liverpool Street or King's Cross at two o'clock in the morning, after all the night trains have gone. If they are to be


sent on an over-night journey they should be despatched from the starting station at a time to enable them to catch the eleven o'clock or midnight trains, and not sent to a Southern camp or training depot just too late to catch the night train and too early to catch the morning train. Nothing appears to have been done. The various training centres could give instructions as to how or when to catch trains.
The Ministry of Transport takes no interest in the matter. It may be said that it is not their job. It may be completely outside the scope of that Department, but at least it is within the scope of the railway companies and organisation to do something with their own refreshment rooms, and not to shut the doors of these places, as they often do, just when a train is coming in, merely because it is eleven o'clock and the licensing hours prevent them selling any more drink. That is what is happening up and down the country. Trains are late and do not arrive at scheduled times; the doors of the refreshment rooms are shut on the stroke of eleven o'clock, and the men cannot get any refreshment because it is after eleven. These points are details in the whole picture of the war organisation, but they are details to which attention should be given. Let us have somebody in the welfare department who can do something, who can get busy and get a move on. Let the Minister of Transport talk to the railway executives and urge them to make some sort of contact between their running departments and the refreshment people, so that these refreshment rooms can be open to people when trains arrive or when the men are waiting in the station.
There is a further aspect of this matter. The Minister will find that this question of night shelters for troops travelling on leave was raised months ago in the House. At that time, a case in point was Inverness, and whoever was in office at the time told the House of what had been done, and that shelters and bivouacs were being arranged. Why was not the same thing done elsewhere? Alternatively, why are not the men sent away at reasonable times? There are two alternatives. Either leave times should be so arranged that men need not come to a London station overnight, or else accommodation should be provided. This matter is not beyond some commonsense

arrangement. I only rise now, on the spur of the moment, because it amazes me to think that after all the weeks the hon. Member for Streatham has been slogging away at this he has to state to-night that still nothing has been done.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I wish to associate myself heartily with the action of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) in bringing this matter before the House. As a fairly regular user of St. Pancras and King's Cross stations, I have been aware of this state of affairs for a considerable time, and I feel ashamed that I have not acted as energetically as the hon. Gentleman, merely contenting myself with casual complaints here and there. I always expected that the matter would be straightened out. I knew of the activities of the voluntary associations; I knew of the Army welfare scheme; I knew that the railways had been taken under the control of the Government, and I could not believe that in the course of weeks decent arrangements would not be made for the comfort of these men passing through the big terminus stations.
It was driven home to me in the strongest possible fashion in Euston one night about nine o'clock, when I was going up by the Scottish train, and I ran into a group of Glasgow men, members of the Royal Engineers, some of them my own constituents who knew me. I entered into conversation with them. They had been over on the Norwegian Expedition. They had been in the terrible landing at Andalsnes. They had been up to Lillehammer, the furthest advance point of the Expedition, had been battered all over the place, had retreated and embarked again on ships under terrible conditions. They had to travel in a troopship through the most dangerous waters round the North of Scotland, down the west into London, and, having arrived here, were glad of a few days leave in which to return to their homes in the West of Scotland. That was a month or more of concentrated hell. I would have thought that, for men who had gone through those experiences, it would not have been too much to have thrown open the doors of Euston Hotel and given them a shakedown. That is as it would seem to me—and, as hon. Members know, I do not


take the ordinary view about warmongers—and it would not be too much for these fellows if they had been given every scrap of hospitality and luxury that Euston Hotel could produce. Do the Ministry of Transport, the L.M.S. or the Army authorities think about anything of that sort—of Army men lying about the platform, with no arrangements made for their ordinary comfort, let alone for special treatment for the men who have been going through a rough time?
I hope that the action of the hon. Gentleman has been sufficient to ensure that this sort of thing will not occur again. It is terrible to think that while I and other Members of this House, and business men who travel up and down between Glasgow and London, can have all the luxuries of the hotels and the dining rooms, and can have first-class sleepers—when the ordinary routine of our lives has not been seriously disturbed by the war—those fellows, who have been going through the hardest conditions, must lie upon the platform among the mail bags. I hope that this Debate has been sufficient to open the eyes of the War Office, and to get something done.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I am glad that this subject has been raised to-night. It is not applicable only to the London stations. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) has rendered a public service in bringing the matter forward. When we consider how much our future depends on the men who are fighting for us, we should at least give some consideration to their comfort. I have been trying for months to get this question settled so far as the soldiers from the North are concerned. Having failed to get proper train connections out of Newcastle, I asked that consideration might be given to the times at which the men were sent on leave. Reference has been made to men being delayed on the London stations because they were unable to catch their last trains to the North, but my problem has been slightly different. The train which used to leave King's Cross arrived at Newcastle one minute before the connecting train left, and the men had to travel about a mile to get that connection. The railway company very kindly brought the connecting train into

the same station as that at which the other train arrives. That arrangement lasted for a fortnight. Then they said that, on account of heavy traffic, they had to take the train back again to the other station. They then re-timed the train, so that there was no hope of a connection in any circumstances. Men who came back from France spent the night lying in the Central Station. It is true that we have a Salvation Army hostel, doing splendid work, but these men do not know of it.
Is it not a shame that a man who had been serving in France, should leave London, get to Newcastle, and then be left lying on the platform for a night, when only 10 or 12 miles from his wife and family? I approached the Secretary for War about this, and he pointed out that they could not control the times of arrival of soldiers of the B.E.F. But the same thing applies to soldiers before they have gone overseas. They have been getting into London at times which prevented them from continuing their journey home. There is no wisdom in this sort of thing. If we cannot arrange to get our men to their homes properly in such times as this, we are entirely lacking in organisation. I hope that the Secretary for War will take steps to enable these men, who are making all these sacrifices for us, to get home to their wives and families.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have undertaken to support the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) on this subject. I think the House will agree that if nobody else but the hon. Member for Streatham had spoken, an overwhelming case would have been made out. But I want to say, as one other Member who has travelled upon the railways to a certain extent since the war began, that what has been said to-night does not overstate the case in any way. I frequently travel from Euston by the night train, and I have travelled from King's Cross and Paddington. At all these stations the spectacle is to be seen of men lying among the mail bags, often being told by porters to get out of the way. They are obviously in great discomfort, even in high summer. If things are like this now and nothing is done, what will they be like in the autumn and


winter, when we shall have many more men under arms, and much cold and wet weather to contend with? It is a question of common sense and of some sort of humanity in the Departments.
Some months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) raised a question about pensions, and he felt so hot about it that he was suspended by Mr. Speaker for the rest of that sitting. But the interesting sequel was that, to my knowledge, that afternoon the Department concerned got busy, money was wired to that hon. Member's constituency, and women who had been waiting for allowances for weeks were called upon and dealt with in a few hours. I should like to believe that the representations made to-night to the Minister of Transport and the Financial Secretary to the War Office will have such an effect that within a few days both Departments will have taken steps to end this scandal once and for all. It is a shocking thing that the railway companies of this country should attempt at this time, as they do, to make a profit out of these soldiers, most of whom have only 7s. a week to live on; and that in some instances the companies should be freezing out the voluntary organisations, who are only too willing to provide for the men without profit.
In my view, there are some bright spots on the British railways. It is possible that Lord Stamp has never heard of them; otherwise, they might have to come into line with Euston and the other stations referred to to-night. Perhaps it would have been better if, instead of Lord Stamp having been seconded to advise the War Cabinet, he had been left to look after the railways, and to provide some comfort for the men who are fighting to keep the country safe. But not all centres are like the stations mentioned to-night. If the Financial Secretary to the War Office goes to Hull at any time, he will find that a voluntary organisation is doing something there, at any rate, to cater for the troops passing through. The hon. Gentleman will find that at any rate, within the limits set it, this valuable voluntary organisation is doing all it can for the men who pass through that city. I think that York has done what it can. I was very struck by what happened when I missed a connection and arrived in York

at about two o'clock in the morning. I found to my amazement that the Women's Voluntary Canteen, or whatever the title of the organisation is, had been given word beforehand by the authorities in London or by the station or railway authorities, and had placed all along the very long platform trucks with hot tea and coffee in cardboard cups ready for the arrival of the train. The men in the train were supplied with hot drinks within a remarkably short time through just that simple action of getting prepared and having the coffee placed at intervals along the platform. What women can do at York Station, surely a great War Office in Whitehall can do on a larger scale. I hope the War Office will see to this matter at the earliest possible moment.
On the question of some little thought being given in helping men to catch connections, a case was brought to my notice by a constituent of mine in the West Riding who is in the Navy and stationed at a Southern port. The difficulty in this case was that the men had to leave at 8 o'clock in the morning. The train left the harbour station at about 8.5 and unless men desiring to catch it sprinted hard, it was impossible for them to catch it. It needed only representations to be made to the Admiralty or to the Minister who speaks in this House for the Admiralty, for the matter to be put right. The men, in being allowed to leave 10 minutes earlier, had ample time in which to catch the train, and to catch the London connection and reach the West Riding or Northumberland or even Scotland quicker than they otherwise would. It ought not to be left to private individuals to write to a Member of Parliament and for the Member to have to write to the Department. The Department ought to be seeing to these things themselves. They have these men under their charge, and they ought to remember that these men are human and are entitled, in these days, to a proper and a square deal. The Government Departments are strong enough and ought to be willing and able to say to the railway companies, "We insist upon your doing this, and we give you a time limit within which to do it." I hope that the Debate to-night will help the Ministers concerned to say that to the railway companies, and to follow it up and see that the instructions which are given are obeyed.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I do not happen to have personal experience of the particular grumbles to which hon. Members have been referring, because my constituency does not cause me to travel by midnight train, but I know of the difficulties that are experienced in a place like Wolverhampton by the late arrival of soldiers on leave and the great difficulties they have in getting to their home destinations. I should like in this connection to pay a tribute to the work done locally by the Toc H hostel, which has given enormous assistance in the way of food and night shelter to a very large number of soldiers who have found themselves in the difficulties of the kind I have described.
The point to which I want to refer, as one has this opportunity to-night, is that a number of complaints have been made to me recently by constituents and others of soldiers who have been sent on leave without adequate food for the journey and without any money. I dare say that other hon. Members have had the same experience. There must have been a very serious lack of care and thought and of organisation in sending soldiers who have been through the terrors of the campaign in France and elsewhere on long, complicated journeys from one end of the country to another with, as I know in one particular case, only a few sandwiches which were totally inadequate for the journey, and without any money with which to purchase anything on the way. I hope the hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, is most anxious to hear of difficulties of this kind and to remedy them at the earliest possible moment, will take note of the particular type of case that I am bringing to his attention. I can see by the response of hon. Members in the House that it is a complaint of a general nature and not one that is peculiar to my own constituency.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I feel sure that the House welcomes the opportunity of expressing its view upon this very important matter, and I am certain that if the House had been filled, the temper of the House would have been significant by showing that the whole House desired that things should be altered, and altered soon. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to

the War Office or the Minister of Transport is to reply, but whoever replies I feel sure it will not suffice for this House for them to say that they have no power to deal with this matter. I am certain that if the Minister of Transport, or the Financial Secretary to the War Office, has not the power to deal with this matter, he has only to come to the House and ask for power, which will readily be granted.
There is a point that I would like to mention—it has not been mentioned by other Members—now that this country is receiving soldiers from the Overseas Dominions. These soldiers are to be in this country, as far as we know, for a considerable time, and they themselves will do a considerable amount of travelling. It will be unfortunate for this country if these men have to write home and tell their people of the conditions which exist as they go from station to station. The good name of this country will be besmirched if they have to submit to the indignities to which many of our soldiers have had to submit during the last few weeks. The Minister of Transport, I understand, from what I have heard in this House, is the good fairy godfather of the railway companies. He is going to preserve their profits and to see that they get their profits. May I suggest that if the soldiers do not make this land secure there will be no railway services from which the directors and shareholders can get their profits? At the present time many of these soldiers are guarding the railways. I admit frankly that they are guarding them from the point of view of national safety, but, mark you, if they are successful, as I believe they will be, in guarding the vital points, it will mean that, after the war is over, the railways will be returned to the railway directors and shareholders intact, according to present arrangements. Therefore the soldiers are performing a very valuable service to the railway companies and I have yet to be informed that the railway companies are paying anything towards this police service which is being exercised by soldiers.
Several hon. Members have referred to the inadequacy of the travelling arrangements. There is something radically wrong in the arrangements that are made for troops to go up and down this country. I had an experience the other day when travelling from Derby to Sheffield.


I was exercising the privilege which Members of Parliament have of travelling in a first-class carriage—normally I travel third class—and I was the only occupant. The train was packed, and a number of soldiers who had come from Dunkirk were standing in the corridor. I invited them to share my first-class carriage. Nine soldiers entered, and we had not journeyed very far before the ticket collector came along and told these men that they would have to get out. I said that the men were not to get out, and I gave the ticket collector my name and told him he could do what he liked about it. The soldiers continued to travel to Sheffield with me in the first-class compartment. We ought to be ready to give these men our best after the privations they have endured. I submit that if they are given third-class tickets and there is no third-class accommodation available, they should be entitled to travel first-class. Nothing we can do is too much to help these brave men in the fight now being waged.
I was under the impression, obviously a foolish impression, that the railway companies were giving free accommodation to the voluntary organisations, and the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) has rendered a valuable service in opening the eyes of the public to the fact that the railway companies are taking a good deal of the proceeds of voluntary organisations to pay for the very meagre accommodation which is provided. The railway companies are compelling the voluntary organisations to purchase essential things and tobacco from them, which means that they are making a profit out of soldiers through the medium of the voluntary organisations. That should be stopped. I hope that as a result of this Debate immediate steps will be taken, both by the War Office and the Minister of Transport, to compel the railway companies to put their house in order. I hope that soldiers will be entitled, without any charge whatsoever, to free accommodation for washing and other purposes and that that accommodation will be the best which can be afforded on the station. I sincerely hope an endeavour will be made to see that t least one room at every main-line station is reserved for soldiers, a room that is kept clean and is comfortable so that they can sit down to read and while away the

hours they may have to spend at the station. If the railway companies are not sufficiently patriotic to do these things without the force of a higher authority, then it is about time that a higher authority exercised its powers and demanded that the companies should do so.
We also have to remember that among the soldiers who will be travelling on the railways there will be quite a considerable number from European countries, so that the language problem will arise. It is very desirable that at the main line stations provision should be made for interpreters to assist these soldiers. I know people give voluntary service, but if you go to Waterloo or any such station it is difficult for a soldier to find an interpreter because the latter wanders up and down the platforms. It would be admirable, if as well as an R.T.O. on the station, there was a friendly advice bureau, provided free, to which these soldiers could go. I hope that the House will determine that the Ministry of Transport or the War Office, whichever is the appropriate authority, shall either exercise to the full the powers it already possesses or come to the House immediately and ask for further powers. If it does so I hope the House will be as generous in giving those powers as the companies have been stingy up to the present.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I am glad this serious matter has been brought before the House to-night, because I have felt nothing less than a hooligan when I have seen these lads suffer through the hardships and indignities placed upon them by the railway companies when I have travelled from Newcastle to London. All that the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) has said I can confirm. There are two things which amaze me: First, the lack of organisation by the Army in respect of conveniences and conveyances for these lads, and, second, the amazing patience of the men. They stand chock-a-block in corridors and lie down so that one has to walk over the top of them. I went through all this in the last war, when men with all their muck on them crowded into carriages at Waterloo and King's Cross, and I thought that after 20 years we would have learned something and have treated them better. I know that to the hon. Gentlemen representing the War Office and the


Minister of Transport this is very much against their grain and that they are very much hurt by what is being said to-night, but let me tell them, quite frankly, that the House will not stand it. We have seen it going on for months, and if something is not done somebody will have to go. Make no bones about it.
For the railway companies to insist upon rents for the conveniences provided by voluntary efforts at great expense of time and labour is simply amazing. I am getting hot under the collar; I can hardly talk with any patience at all when I think what the railway companies have dared to do. These lads have come out of the jaws of death and the mouth of hell for them and theirs, and yet they charge rent for these conveniences on station platforms. These lads must be provided with the best, for only the best is good enough. I have felt hurt when I have been in a first-class carriage and seen these lads hounded as if they were outside the pale. Every time I see them I think their breed is right, and this House is not worthy of itself or its prestige if it is content with anything but the best for them. If this matter is not put right at an early date somebody here will know all about it.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: Very modest language has been used by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) in drawing attention to what is a grave public scandal. It is an amazing thing that the railway companies, which were asking for a square deal not so long ago, should now be doling out this sort of stuff for those who are fighting for this country. I regard it as an extremely unfortunate thing that it should be necessary this evening for us to be discussing this matter at all. One thought that the War Office or the Ministry of Transport would have had the matter put right long since. As we know, the hon. Member for Streatham has been using very endeavour and bringing pressure to bear for six weeks for something to be done, and it was not until he had used every avail in every possible direction that he, with a sense of public duty, came here to-night and drew attention to this scandalous matter.
There are two points which need to be put right, and put right quickly. The first is the lack of proper accommoda-

tion, and the second the excessive prices which are charged for ordinary food by railway companies which seek to make a profit out of men who are getting in most cases about 2s. a day. Backbench Members have performed a public service to-night in drawing attention to a matter which it should never have been necessary to raise in this House, and I hope that the Minister of Transport or the War Office will have this matter remedied. One would like to know where the responsibility lies, but wherever it lies I hope they will at once put the matter right. One final word. The hon. Member for Streatham drew attention to the position at the London stations. I would like to tell the House that it is not different at Manchester, and no doubt it is the same at other large stations as well.

8.52 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I should like to support all that has been said by hon. Members as to the deplorable conditions which exist at stations and the treatment of these men. One hon. Member said that he had had the experience of riding in a first-class carriage with these men standing in the corridor; that he had asked the men to come in and that they were ordered out by the ticket inspector. That might give the impression that the ticket inspector was unkind. I should like to make it quite clear that there is no class of men who feel their position more than ticket inspectors. They are simply doing their duty, and it is not their fault. It is really the fault of the railway companies.

Mr. H. Beaumont: I do not want it to be thought that the ticket inspector was unnecessarily dictatorial. He was carrying out his duties. When I said, "Let the men stay here, I will accept responsibility," he said, "I am only carrying out my instructions. I have to tell them that they must not stay here." He was extremely decent about the matter.

Sir J. Lamb: I am glad that I have got an explanation from the hon. Member that the ticket inspector was only carrying out his duty.

8.54 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Richard Law): Every hon. Member who has spoken has congratulated the House on the fact that the Debate is


taking place and that these grave scandals have been exposed. I am not disposed to take such a gloomy view of the War Office or the Ministry of Transport as to admit that there are such grave scandals, but I agree with the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson), who said at the beginning of his speech that Members of Parliament had a special duty to consider the conditions as they affect those who are fighting our battles. It is a good thing that we should consider them and a very good thing that the Departments concerned should be made aware of any deficiencies there may be. The Debate has arisen out of the conditions at the three Northern termini of London, and Liverpool Street Station. Before I deal with the specific points which have been raised in regard to these stations, I should like to make two general reflections. In the first place, great as is the admiration I have for the clarity of the hon. Member for Streatham, I do not think he is addicted very much to the habit of understatement, and I think he did paint a gloomy picture, and an unnecessarily gloomy picture. My hon. Friend has tackled me on this point, and I made it my business to go to the northern termini and see what was happening. I went there late on a Saturday night, and I found nothing that tallied in any way with the description the hon. Member gave.

Mr. Robertson: What time?

Mr. Law: Between 12 and one o'clock. I did not see the conditions which the hon. Member has described. However, on inquiry from various people at the station I was told that I had chosen an unfortunate night and that if I came in the week, I would see a different picture. I made it my business to go up again about midnight in the middle of the week, and, although there was obviously more movement of troops and more going on at the station generally, normally there were no signs of the conditions which the hon. Member and other hon. Members have described.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary made his visit in a period when all leave was suspended from every home town; when not one of the huge number of soldiers was travelling or was allowed to travel?

Mr. Law: The first visit was on a Saturday night, and my second visit was at the beginning of the movement of the B.E.F. on its return, when it was being reorganised and men going on leave were being taken to other stations. I am not trying to make out that the conditions I saw were perfectly normal, but I think it is fair to say that the conditions which the hon. Member has described are not universal. He said that day after day and night after night there were thousands of soldiers lying on the platform in great discomfort. I do not believe that that has been the general rule. There may have been brief periods when it has happened. Indeed, the conditions in recent weeks have become rather worse owing to the movement of the B.E.F. I admit that the conditions at these stations are not everything we should like, but improvements are being made and will continue to be made at these stations.

Mr. Cove: Is there a single room at King's Cross where soldiers coming back can rest while waiting for trains? Is there the slightest accommodation for these men? I travel from King's Cross nearly every night, and I see the men walking about the platforms. They even have the impression that they are not wanted in the restaurant rooms at King's Cross.

Mr. Law: I can assure the hon. Member that there is a room for the soldiers, and there are two canteens run by the Salvation Army. One of these canteens faces the end of the platform where the trains come in, and the other faces a carriageway opposite the booking office.

Mr. Shinwell: I think it would interest hon. Members if the hon. Gentleman would say what is the nature of the improvements of which he has spoken. Will he give some details?

Mr. Law: I said that I would deal-with these improvements in detail, but that first I wanted to make some preliminary observations.

Mr. Cove: As a matter of fact, are not the conditions scandalous at King's Cross?

Mr. Law: The second observation I want to make is that I do not think the attack which my hon. Friend has made


on the welfare officers, an attack which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall), is in any way justified. If the House does not know it, I think it ought to know that the welfare officers—and there were none of them in the last war—are in the nature of an experiment.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: There were welfare officers in the last war.

Mr. Law: The work of these welfare officers is entirely voluntary. They work very long hours. There are some 1,500 of them all over the country. They do a great deal to organise the leisure of troops, and they have done a very great deal to improve the conditions at the London termini.

Mr. H. Beaumont: Have these officers any power or authority to improve conditions?

Mr. Law: The welfare officers have power, but they have not power, obviously, to go to the Ministry of Transport or the War Office and say that the railway companies must be compelled to take this action.

Mr. Beaumont: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about welfare officers at stations or the welfare officers of the Army?

Mr. Law: I am speaking about the welfare organisation of the War Office, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham made an attack. These officers, whose work is entirely voluntary, who give very long hours to it, who are put to a great deal of trouble by it, do a great deal of work in the Army generally in the way of organising the leisure of the troops, and at the same time they have done a great deal in the matter of the London termini. For example, when the B.E.F. were in France, when a man got leave the welfare officers made arrangements for his transport from the terminus in London, and if his train got in at an hour when there was no ordinary transport they made arrangements, if they could, for his free lodging, and so on. They have done a very great deal to improve conditions at the stations, and they have done what they could to improve conditions within the stations, although there they have not the

authority. When my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham first approached me on the matter, there was at King's Cross a Salvation Army canteen at the end of the platform. My hon. Friend maintained that that canteen was not big enough, and therefore, another room was made available in addition; and that room is being provided with washing facilities, which I quite agree ought to be there. That is one definite improvement that has been made. My hon. Friend says that that is not enough, because within a day or two this building is to be made over to the Post Office. That is perhaps rather an exaggeration. There is no question of its being made over to the Post Office in a day or two. There is some question of its being made over in six months. It seemed to the War Office, so urgent was this matter, that it would be desirable to act at once rather than await the result of the negotiations. The position is that this accommodation is available now, and the War Office is in negotiation with the Post Office on the question of the ultimate use to be made of an extra rest room.

Mr. Robertson: Obviously, the Financial Secretary is not at all familiar with the subject about which he is attempting to inform the House. The shed he speaks of is like an open tube station, and the back of it is closed with corrugated iron. There is a great open front, and when the weather becomes colder it will be like an ice house. On the floor there are concrete and dust, and the Salvation Army have improvised trestle tables and little hard uncomfortable chairs. They are serving cups of tea and cocoa, and any washing arrangements which are contemplated are contemplated by the Salvation Army, and the Association I have the honour to represent are finding the money for them.

Mr. Law: I have informed myself about this room, and I have seen it. The view of the hon. Member seems to have changed, because when he learned that this room was available he himself inspected it and wrote to me saying that it seemed entirely satisfactory. That improvement has been made, and it is a definite improvement. With regard to St. Pancras, Liverpool Street, and Euston, negotiations are going on at the present time to obtain better accommodation for


the voluntary societies. I can say categorically that these negotiations are not being held up by any matter of finance. If the accommodation can be made available, then the voluntary societies will be in a position to enter the premises without prejudice.

Mr. Etherton: What is holding up the negotiations, and who is holding them up?

Mr. Law: It is not finance. That is a very pertinent question. The fact is that there is a very great physical problem. Hon. Members have been speaking rather freely as though there was a lot of space and no one particularly wanted to make any use of it. If we consider how these stations are situated and how old-fashioned and crowded they are, it will be realised that there is very little space. The problem is to find suitable space without inconveniencing the railways and the flow of traffic. This is a very important matter. I quite agree with the seriousness of this question, but, in a sense, it is more important that the railway companies should function properly than that added comfort should be provided. There was a proposal made that premises at Cardington Street should be made available. These proposals were examined by the War Office, and it was decided that the premises were unsuitable and too far away from the station, and that better accommodation ought to be found. The railway company is at this moment seeing whether much more convenient accommodation cannot be made available without loss of efficiency to the railway company and the station.
The same kind of consideration applies with regard to Liverpool Street station. There is a room which might serve very well the purposes of a canteen and rest room for the troops. It has not yet been made available, not because of the question of rent, but because it is already under an option to the London County Council as an air-raid shelter. It has not been used as an air-raid shelter, but the option still remains and negotiations are in train with the county council to see whether the option cannot be raised.

Mr. Robertson: The London County Council say they have no objection and have nothing to do with the gymnasium at Liverpool Street.

Mr. Law: My hon. Friend must have got his information wrong, because I am confident from what I have heard in the Department that that is the position with regard to the gymnasium. It is under option and negotiations are in progress to see whether the option can be raised. These improvements, which, I think, will be genuine improvements, will provide more rest rooms and washing facilities in the stations and will remove the main source of grievance which, it is clear from what hon. Members have said to-night, exists.
Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to ask, if this is so, why the grievance was not removed before. The answer is, partly, that the problem has become much more acute since the return of the British Expeditionary Force, the greatly increased number of troops in the country and the movement of troops about the country. Also, the various Departments in the War Office which would be concerned in this matter have been so much occupied with matters of greater urgency that they have not yet had time to attend to it. As an example, a meeting was to be held a fortnight ago to discuss this question between an officer of the War Office and an officer of the road department. The officer of the War Office was so heavily engaged in the organisation of the Local Defence Volunteers that he could not attend the meeting, and the officer of the road department was so occupied with the question of the removal of the British Expeditionary Force that he could not attend. That is the sort of thing that has cropped up, and it is inevitable that it should crop up. I can give the House the assurance, however, that this problem is regarded seriously by the War Office and that certain positive steps are in train to improve it. I hope the House will have confidence that the points which hon. Members have raised will be attended to as far as they possibly can be.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I can hardly believe that hon. Members will be completely satisfied with the assurances furnished by the hon. Gentleman. While I think we might all agree that there are physical difficulties which prevent a speedy improvement and the complete elimination of the problem, yet, when we


are told by the hon. Gentleman that certain key officers were unable to attend a meeting because of difficulties with which we are all familiar, the position does seem to be unsatisfactory. What must be present in the mind of every hon. Member is, if one officer could not attend, why could not another? My intervention is not for the purpose of criticising the hon. Gentleman. I would say that I am surprised that the Minister of Transport is not anxious to intervene in this Debate. After all, this is not a War Office matter. The War Office may come to a conclusion as to what ought to be done, but the matter rests with the railway companies. The War Office proposes, so to speak, and the railway companies dispose, and the responsibility rests with the Minister of Transport.
It is all very well to say that nothing singular happens at King's Cross or any of the other London termini, but everyone who travels knows that soldiers do lie about on railway platforms. What is even more important to my mind is the difficulty they experience in obtaining refreshments, first because there is not sufficient voluntary accommodation and, secondly, because they cannot afford to avail themselves of the facilities at the ordinary refreshment bars. I travel perhaps as much as any hon. Member, mostly at week-ends, and I frequently notice that while the refreshment bars at railway stations are unoccupied by the travelling public, Service men are hanging about the platforms. When they desire refreshments at the reduced prices offered by the voluntary establishments they cannot get them because the places are fully occupied. Why cannot the men go to the ordinary refreshment bars available to the public and obtain tea, coffee and other things at reduced prices? What is the difficulty about that? Obviously one difficulty is that the railways may lose a little money, but surely that can be adjusted between the War Office and the railways if the railways do not desire to lose money because their shareholders might object.
We have been told that improvements are now being considered and that the Minister hopes they will be speedily effected, but can he give us the assurance that that will be within a week or a fortnight at the latest? After all, we cannot wait too long. This war may end very

suddenly—who can say?—and on the other hand it may go on for years. The problem may become more acute. Cannot the Government exercise pressure? We must not forget that the Government have told us that they have taken over all property, that under the powers vested in them they can exercise complete control at any time they like. Can we have an assurance that under those powers they will call upon the railway companies, or whoever is responsible, to effect these improvements immediately? I ask for that assurance, and in that I think I reflect the views of every hon. Member.
I do not want to say a word about the sacrifices of the men, but as I listened to hon. Members who speak with much greater emotion than I can muster, I thought of that epic story of the Queen Victoria Rifles at Calais, those men who held out to the last and so enabled thousands of other men to get away. I thought of those sacrifices and many others familiar to my hon. Friends, and then I thought of the stories of these men who have waited in corridors or lain on our railway platforms. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) said that he wondered at the patience of the men. I would say to the hon. Gentleman who has replied, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, that if I had to put up with a fraction of what some of these men have to put up with, there would not be a Debate in this House; there would be a mutiny. I simply could not stand it. I am satisfied that the ordinary Member of this House could not stand it, and if we are not prepared to put up with these unpleasant things ourselves, we ought not to ask the serving men to put up with them. I hope that the War Office will take urgent measures to remedy the defects. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree—he can speak again by leave of the House—within a week or a fortnight from now to inform hon. Members that such improvement has been effected as will satisfy not only hon. Members but all serving men.

9.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Guest: I feel, as do a great number of other Members, that this is largely a matter for the Minister of Transport to enforce his will upon the railway companies. There is an obligation on a great


many of us in this country to exert certain faculties, or give up certain things, or make certain arrangements, perhaps for the benefit of workers in the factories or of other people, and it is definitely a question for the railway companies to provide accommodation for the men who move throughout their systems, particularly at night. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be drastic in the steps he takes with the railway companies to compel them to make accommodation available for the serving soldiers and to do everything in their power to make the lives of these men better than they are.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I listened very carefully to the reply of the hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office, and I do not think any Member who travels regularly and has seen the things that have been described tonight can be satisfied with that reply. I say, frankly, that if the hon. Gentleman were occupying his old place on those back benches he would be the last in this House to be satisfied with the reply that he has placed officially before us. It rather amazes me and makes me downhearted when I think of the terrific changes that can be made in an individual who, after years of emphatically criticising his Government, takes office himself, and then turns round and criticises his own comrades or fellow-Members in the House, by saying that they have spoken freely or have overstated their case. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman on many an occasion; I can say that out of office he was emphatic, but that in office to-night he has been pathetic.
Let us examine one or two of the points which he made. As one who travels regularly and has seen many of the scenes at Euston station, I ask him to tell us how many welfare officers are on duty between 8 o'clock and 11 o'clock at night at Euston station, what powers they have and what steps are taken to direct the attention of soldiers to the presence of those welfare officers? How many have hon. Members seen in the stations? What indications have they seen placed by the railway companies on the stations, other than the indications telling them to apply to the R.T.O.? What indications do the men receive when they come from one station to another, in batches, wandering

about the stations and asking questions of various individuals as to their whereabouts? How is it made known to them that these welfare officers are in existence and what the welfare officers can do? I have seen very little sign of anything of that kind being done. It is not only a question for the Ministry of Transport. It is the responsibility of the War Office to look after those men and to state definitely to the Minister of Transport what they want. If they cannot get it from the Ministry of Transport they should come to the House and tell the Members what their difficulties are.
During the last war we had welfare officers in the stations. There were voluntary people who guided, for instance, the Scottish soldiers to St. Columba's Church hut where we washed and shaved, had our boots cleaned and received attention. Go into Euston station to-night or any night when the 9.15, the 9.25 and the 10.15 trains are leaving. Look at the bars there. Men who want a cup of tea and a bun or some light refreshments have to go into the bar along with the men who want refreshment of a different kind. They are crowding over one another's shoulders, waiting to be attended to, and there is a general mix-up. I do not say that because I want to criticise the War Office, nor do I want to make things unpleasant for the hon. Gentleman. I say it because it is a fact, and I have seen it with my own eyes, as have other hon. Members. Therefore, I urge that the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) should be acted upon.
The hon. Gentleman referred to officers who could not attend the meeting; he said that those things, of course, would and must happen. We have heard of that for the last two years. It has been the excuse. That reason has been put forward repeatedly from the opposite bench when the hon. Gentleman was in opposition to that bench. That is what he was told by the Ministers whom he was criticising. He was told that there were always little difficulties and obstacles. His job is to remove those difficulties and obstacles, and, as a Member who attained his position because of criticism and a statement of a desire to improve the conditions of the men in the Army, it is his duty to act as quickly as possible. We do not want an Under-Secretary or a Minister coming to the House and saying that it was difficult to


get a meeting, that a certain person had to go somewhere else, or that somebody else was tied up with another organisation, that they have the matter in mind and that at some time in the future something will be done. The Minister should come here with plans, with the number of welfare officers allocated to different stations, of the accommodation to be allocated to the men, the facilities to be given to the men, the indications and the publication of notices as to where the men can go, and proper accommodation in the trains for the men.
I have travelled first-class and felt thoroughly ashamed of myself. I once inquired at a station whether one of the soldiers could share a compartment with me. I did not want to sleep that night. I once saw Scotsmen of the 51st and 52nd Divisions coming home, crowding 10 and 12 and more in a compartment, opening the windows for room, lying in the corridors; going in these conditions to Scotland, which is never an easy journey for Members of Parliament unless they secure a sleeper. Such a state of things is a national disgrace. Those men should be treated as the people of this country desire them to be treated.
It is the hon. Gentleman's duty, if there are officers who cannot attend meetings, to say to them, as the deputy-commissioner said to one of them, "You will

attend this meeting at 10 o'clock, or the man who takes your place will do so." If you cannot get people to take this question seriously, come to the Members of this House, and we will tell you how to do it. But first organise the welfare arrangements, giving the office adequate space on the station, so that the men can see it. Instruct your military police—who are sometimes more adequate at the stations than the welfare officers—how to guide these men. If the hon. Gentleman likes to form a committee to-morrow of half a dozen Members of this House, I will guarantee that those Members will be able to tell him how the accommodation can be brought into being. The hon. Gentleman may smile. It may be that that accommodation can be brought to the soldiers only by interfering with the luxuries of certain other individuals, but that does not matter to-day. What matters is that those men should have adequate treatment. Unless that is done, the question will be raised again and again, until there has been a change made, either in regard to soldiers' conditions or in that office.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes before Ten o'Clock.